Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is a living embodiment of the good that swimming can do early, often and throughout one's life. I would give his council similar advice to that that I would offer the council of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer): to come out of a position whereby swimming is an easy target—the item to be cut and the first thing to take away from people when the pressure is on—and take a more enlightened view. If councils invest in sport and physical activity in the long run, they can relieve pressure on other parts of the council budget. Given that we have made the money available and are providing incentives for councils to take up the scheme, I hope that my hon. Friend can persuade his council to follow that route with us.

Andy Burnham: It is a very good thing. I was in Bolton not long ago, at the Bolton arena, to see the efforts being made to engage young people in sport in my hon. Friend's constituency, and a mighty fine thing that is, too. What you are hearing today, Mr. Speaker, is that this policy—a Labour policy—is about the Government making sport available to as many people as possible. The Opposition carped about free entry to museums and galleries, which has seen the number of people using museums and galleries double, and they are doing the same today. I congratulate Bolton. I will have the courage of my convictions and say that what we are doing is the right thing to do. As a result, we can make lots more people healthy and active.

Peter Kilfoyle: Does my right hon. Friend wonder, like me, how we can encourage swimming under councils such as the Liberal Democrat council in Liverpool, which closed New Hall swimming pool in my constituency that had been specially adapted for special needs? The next pool along, in Queen's drive, was merged into Alsop school, thereby taking it out of public use for half the day. How is that encouraging people in a deprived part of the city to take up swimming?

David Kidney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. We dived into the swimming pool for Questions 1 and 2, and now we are on the surface for some swimming. Will he note that in Stafford the local council has just opened a brand-new, modern-design swimming pool, which has plenty of happy swimmers? The council is very interested in the scheme, but is anxious to know the criteria so that its plans for a new swimming pool can fit them. May I urge him to keep to the timetable that he has described, and to consult with local government about design?

Andy Burnham: We have been very grateful for the help, co-operation and advice of the Local Government Association so far, and we will continue to have the closest possible dialogue with it in taking the scheme forward. As I said, the intention is to have a partnership with local government, not to impose anything on anybody. We want councils voluntarily to come up with the basic idea, and to help make swimming as free as possible. It is a fantastic statement to the public that brand- new facilities such as those described by my hon. Friend are available free. We will start with the over-60s and then hope to make progress on the under-16s. We will give details before the summer recess, which will allow his council to plan accordingly.

Andy Burnham: I would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues in order to see how we might be able to help take further forward the discussions in her area. Only on Friday, I opened the Leigh indoor sports centre. It is part of the £80-million Leigh sports village, which, frankly, is my pride and joy. It is a scheme that will, in a deprived part of the country like my hon. Friend's, give people access to the highest quality sports facilities. I could not be more proud of anything I have ever achieved than I am of that. If she is seeking to do something similar in her constituency, she will have my full support.

Ian Lucas: Ashes cricket will be on television free to view next year, but only in Australia. Will the Government please take into account the additional money coming into English cricket through Stanford and through the Indian premier league and act now, rather than awaiting a review, to reinstate the position of live Test cricket on the TV A-list?

Andy Burnham: The questions that the hon. Gentleman raises are straightforwardly an editorial matter for the BBC, but in all her discussions with the Chinese authorities, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has repeatedly made the point that there should be progress toward full freedom of speech on all issues. She continues to make that case at every opportunity.

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on listed sporting events and his robust defence of the need for such a list to ensure free-to-air access to our main national sports. I am as committed as he is to that principle, because it is important to balance giving sports access to the widest possible public and getting money into the grass roots. He will be aware that the list is subject to some challenge in Europe as to whether or not it is possible to maintain such a policy. I assure him that I am vigorously defending the principles of the list, and I look forward to having continued discussions with him on this subject.

Tessa Jowell: Because the fully costed security plan, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is in the process of being prepared. It is being led by the Home Office with proper oversight and management arrangements. Yes, work has been under way for some time, but we wish to ensure that the security budget pays only for those matters that are specifically relevant to the Olympics, and that no further additionality or other wish lists are being funded from the Olympic budget. Because of the lead that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken, there is confidence that the planning of security is properly under control and we will have a safe and secure games, with security a proportionate part of the way in which the games are run and managed.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels that I attended with the Foreign Secretary on 19 and 20 June. The main business of the Council on Thursday and Friday evening was to focus on the economic challenges ahead—the triple challenge of rising oil prices, rising food prices and, because of the credit crunch, the rising cost of money—and, in the wake of the US downturn, on measures to keep the European economy moving forward.
	Important conclusions were also reached on the Irish referendum, on climate change, on the millennium development goals and on the European response to the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. On Thursday evening, in the discussion on the Irish referendum vote, the Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, offered to the Council meeting in October a report on the next stage for Ireland. The Council held that other member states will continue with their ratification processes and I was able to report for the UK that—like in 18 other countries—the Lisbon treaty had completed its parliamentary process and that the Bill received Royal Assent on Thursday. Once we have received the judgment in the ongoing legal case, we will move to ratification.
	This time last year the price of oil was about $65 a barrel. At the last European Council in March it stood at $107. At the June Council, the oil price had risen further still to more than $135 a barrel. The global challenge that we face is a rising demand for oil—particularly from China and the other emerging economies now and in the future—that has so far been only partly met by an increase in supply, driving up fuel bills for families across the whole of Europe. Governments are taking action domestically to help—including our winter allowance and the new agreement that we have signed with utility companies for low-income households—but we know that those are ultimately global problems that require global solutions. The shared European view is that we must take action to reduce our dependence on oil and to improve our energy efficiency.
	The new technology of carbon capture and storage will help us continue to use coal, oil and gas in a way that avoids harmful emissions, so earlier this year we reiterated our commitment to move forward with up to 12 commercial scale carbon capture and storage plants by 2015. Last week, accepting UK arguments about the importance and urgency of the matter, the Council called on the Commission to bring forward an incentive mechanism to achieve that goal. Britain is ready to have the first such plant in Europe.
	Transport will account for two thirds of future increases in oil demand so improving fuel efficiency and exploring alternatives to petrol and diesel is essential to incentivise innovation among car manufacturers. The UK will continue to push for a commitment to an EU-wide car emissions target of 100 g per kilometre by 2020—down from 160 g, and a 40 per cent. reduction—saving the British family about £500 a year in fuel costs. At Britain's urging, the Council also agreed to explore the scope to accelerate the introduction of commercially viable electric vehicles and the infrastructure that their widespread use would require across the EU. Generating electricity is significantly less carbon intensive than using oil, and with all major car manufacturers—including all UK-based ones—now close to developing commercially viable hybrid and electric vehicles, they have the potential to reduce our dependency on oil and our carbon emissions as well as to create thousands of jobs in the British automotive industry.
	All those measures will help to meet our overall target of reducing carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2020—or by 30 per cent. as part of a wider international agreement—but these decisions are made in the context of a dialogue between oil producers and consumers, where both should commit to greater transparency and a better balance between supply and demand. The Council therefore welcomed Saudi Arabia's high-level meeting between oil producers and consumers, which I attended, in Jeddah this weekend. I am today writing to all European leaders to inform them of the results of the Jeddah process, which will lead to a follow-up summit in London later this year. I can tell the House that the summit discussed measures to deliver a more sustainable global oil price, to reduce the risks and uncertainty that can increase prices and to ensure greater investment in oil production as well as energy efficiency and alternatives to oil.
	I proposed that Britain and other oil consumers should open up our markets to new investment from oil producers in all forms of energy, including renewables and nuclear, providing all producers with a long-term future in non-oil energy. In return, oil producers should be open to increased funding and expertise in oil exploration and development through co-operation with external investors, providing increased oil supply in the medium term while growing economies adjust to a less oil-intense long-term future. The House will know that Saudi Arabia announced at the summit its increases in oil production.
	The prices of rice and wheat are now double what they were only a year ago. Higher food prices cause concern to many of us here at home, but in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a family's spending, they can be even more devastating. To tackle rising prices both here and overseas and to help boost agricultural production, the Council agreed to implement the conclusions of the Rome food summit. It also agreed to assess the evidence of the indirect impact of biofuel, and the UK's Gallagher review on the indirect impact, due to report shortly, will be part of that process.
	We also committed to work towards a successful outcome to the Doha trade round, where eliminating trade-distorting subsidies and import restrictions could increase global gross domestic product by as much as $300 billion a year by 2015. That is something that I have discussed with President Bush, President Lula, Chancellor Merkel and President Barroso as well as with the European Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, in recent days. I believe that while we are at the eleventh hour in getting a trade deal, a trade deal is definitively within our grasp.
	The European Union must take action on the elements of the common agricultural policy that raise the cost of food for consumers across Europe. Removing incentives for taking arable land out of production, for example, could reduce cereal prices by up to 5 per cent. The Council agreed to re-examine the issues of fair competition and sustainable agriculture.
	As part of the year of action on the millennium development goals, and ahead of the G8 in July and the United Nations meeting in September, the European Council signed up to an agenda for action that reaffirms EU aid targets and sets specific milestones for the developing countries, to be achieved by 2010: increased European investment of €4 billion to recruit 6 million more teachers, and, on health, an extra €8 billion to help save 4 million children's lives and provide for 75 million more bed nets against mosquitoes in Africa. I will be pushing the G8 in July to ensure that we have as a world the 120 million nets that we need, so that every child in every family in the world is able to sleep safely at night. The Commission has also agreed to establish millennium development goal contracts, linking European Union spending to specific and agreed outcomes by developing countries, that will secure value for money. I am pleased to announce a British contribution of £200 million to that fund.
	The Council also discussed the deteriorating political and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. In recent weeks under Mugabe's increasingly desperate and criminal regime, Zimbabwe has seen more than 80 killings, 2,700 beatings, the displacement of 34,000 people and the arrest and detention of Opposition leaders, including Tendai Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai. In the face of that unacceptable situation, the European Council reiterated its readiness to take further measures against those responsible for the violence. We will seek to impose travel and financial sanctions on those in the inner circle of the criminal cabal running the regime.
	The House knows that since the Council met last week, the situation has deteriorated further still. As a number of African Presidents and Ministers have already stated, the regime has made it impossible to hold free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, and state-sponsored terror and intimidation have put the Opposition in an untenable position. Our thoughts are with the people of Zimbabwe, who are facing an unprecedented level of violence and intimidation from the regime. The whole world is of one view: that the status quo cannot continue. The African Union has called for the violence to end. The current Government—with no parliamentary majority, having lost the first round of the presidential elections and holding power only because of violence and intimidation—are a regime that should not be recognised by anyone.
	The UN Security Council will meet later today. The Foreign Secretary will make a detailed statement in a few minutes following the discussions that he and I, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, have held with African leaders. Today, I have talked to the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon; to the president of the African Union, Mr. Kikwete; to the President of South Africa; and to Morgan Tsvangirai himself. Members of the Southern African Development Community and the African Union leadership will want to meet to discuss the emergency. We understand that there are plans for meetings very soon, and we support that happening quickly.
	We urge that SADC observers' evaluations of the seriousness of the situation on the ground be made public immediately so that the whole world can witness the truth about what has been happening. We urge that the UN and the African Union work together with SADC to send envoys and a mission to Zimbabwe to discuss the situation on the ground and the way forward. We believe that the UN envoy should be allowed to return immediately to examine the human rights violations. The international community must send a powerful and united message: that we will not recognise the fraudulent election rigging and the violence and intimidation of a criminal and discredited cabal. We are ready to offer substantial help for the reconstruction of Zimbabwe once democracy has been restored.
	The Council also expressed its ongoing concern about the humanitarian situation in Burma in the aftermath of the cyclone and called for a return to democracy and the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. We made clear our continued determination to play a leading role in ensuring peace and stability in Kosovo.
	Our national interest is, and remains, a strong Britain in a strong European Union. We will continue to focus on an outward-looking European agenda that tackles in an effective way the global, economic, environmental and development issues that affect us all. That is what the Council sought to do at its June meeting, and that is what the Government will be doing in the run-up to the French presidency that starts in July. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: May I first welcome what the Prime Minister said about the millennium development goals and about Burma?
	On Zimbabwe, we welcome what the Prime Minister says about the EU widening sanctions on members of that regime, but will he make sure that it really happens this time? Will the Government press for a UN commission of inquiry into the abuses of human rights, with a view to future action by the International Criminal Court? Vitally—he hinted at this, but perhaps he could go further—will he set out a detailed rescue package for the post-Mugabe era to make it absolutely clear that when Mugabe goes we will do all that we can to breathe new life into that country and into those people who have suffered so much? But is not there something else that we can do? Should not we now make it clear that we are prepared to withdraw international recognition from Mugabe's regime to say to him and his henchmen: "You are no longer the legitimate Government of the country you are terrorising"? The Foreign Secretary shakes his head, but the Prime Minister's statement was so opaque that perhaps he can be a little bit clearer in his reply about withdrawing recognition. If he rattles these things off like a machine gun, it is extremely difficult for people to follow things. Let me take this nice and slowly so that he can concentrate.
	Let me turn to the cost of living. There are three key policy areas where the EU has real power to affect the cost of living—free trade, reforming agriculture and, crucially, keeping its own costs under control. On that basis, was not the European Council a huge disappointment? On free trade, there was nothing more than platitudes. There was no new action on the common agricultural policy, and not a mention of the EU keeping its own costs under control. Meanwhile, at a time of rising living costs, is it not the case that our own Government have given up £7 billion of our rebate—taxpayers' hard-earned money—with nothing in return?
	The Prime Minister rightly focused on the price of oil and the need to encourage renewables and new technology. We welcome what he says about the 100 g carbon dioxide target for new cars by 2020—that is, I can announce, another Conservative policy introduced by this Government. Given his enthusiasm, though, why is he going ahead with the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station without carbon capture and storage, why has he done so little on tidal and wave power, and why is he dragging his feet on feed-in tariffs? Clearly, the supply of crude oil is important, but what is he proposing to do about the danger that prices are being driven higher because financial institutions are investing so heavily in commodities, including oil?
	At the heart of this European Council was the issue of the Irish referendum. The Prime Minister said so little about Ireland, I thought that he was about to tell us that it was a far-away country of which we know little. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister faced a very clear choice? He could have done the difficult thing and declared the treaty dead, or he could have done the easy thing, and joined others in starting the process of bullying Ireland into a second referendum. Is it not the case that in taking the latter path, he has let down the people of Ireland, let down Britain and let down Europe? Can the Prime Minister really explain why he has done this?
	Governments of this country, whether Labour or Conservative, have never wanted a European constitution, with a European President, a European Foreign Minister and a European diplomatic service. Even Tony Blair was clear, when the process started, in saying that he did not want a constitution. The Prime Minister has only ever attempted to sell the treaty on the basis of what he has opted out of, rather than anything positive in the document. So why, when the only people given the chance to speak say no, does he fail to show any leadership? Even Tony Blair was better than this. When France and the Netherlands voted the treaty down in its original form, Tony Blair halted ratification and said that people were
	"blowing the trumpets round the city walls."
	Why did the Prime Minister not give the same sort of lead following the Irish vote?  [ Interruption.] I have not only read the treaty; I have also looked at your website.
	Is it not the case that anyone arguing against this treaty is met with four entirely bogus arguments? First, the Government say that it is time to stop talking about institutional reform. If that is the case, what is the Prime Minister doing supporting a new institutional treaty? Secondly, he said last week that the treaty is absolutely essential for enlargement. Is it not the case that that is simply untrue? The Labour Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I am glad to see him in his place—has said that that is
	"not legally true, and...not politically true either."—[ Official Report, 18 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 980.]
	Instead of giving cover to those who want to slow down or halt the enlargement process, will the Prime Minister correct that statement today? Thirdly, he says that if the treaty is killed off, we would be isolated in Europe. But is that not wrong too? On our side, against this steady creation of a European state, are the Dutch voters, the French voters and now the Irish voters.
	Is not his final argument the most bogus of all? He says that any party that chooses to talk about the loss of national vetoes, the dangers of a European superstate or giving people a vote in a referendum is somehow backward-looking and indulgent in old politics. Does he not see that what is backward-looking is the political elite in Brussels, endlessly coming up with new powers to transfer to a European Union without giving anyone a say? In every other walk of life, people are being given more control, more choice and more freedom. That is the new politics. When is the Prime Minister going to wake up and realise that the European Union is going in entirely the wrong direction?
	A year ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing street and said that he would protect the British way of life, build trust in government and bring the change that could not
	"be met by the old politics".
	But let us look at what he has done: he has brought back a constitution, pretending it is a new treaty—[Hon. Members: "No!"] Yes. He is taking part in the bullying of a small country that has voted against it, and insisting on driving through the treaty without allowing the British people a say on it. Half-truths, ignoring democracy, breaking promises and shutting people out when they should be given a say: can you get any more old politics than that?

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
	Compared with other six-monthly European Union summits, last week's was not a hugely significant one. In truth, it was more about catching up with fast-moving developments than about setting the pace for the future. Rather than their master, the summit was in many ways a slave to events, whether the aftermath of the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty or the unscheduled spat between the French President and the Prime Minister's good friend, the EU Trade Commissioner.
	On the Lisbon treaty, the Prime Minister is right, of course, that we need to respect the need for the Irish Government to consider their next steps before October. However, as a supporter of the treaty, I none the less worry that we might soon make the best the enemy of the good. Uncertainty beyond October would genuinely raise the spectre of a paralysed European Union, unable to deliver concrete benefits to European citizens. So will he give some assurance that the treaty's fate, whatever one thinks about it, will be sealed one way or another in October and that we will not be pitched into months of further uncertainty about the treaty?
	On the issue of Zimbabwe, I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to working in the European Union and the United Nations. I hope that the international community will consider all the options available, including the case for stopping foreign currency remittances into Zimbabwe, restricting electricity supplies from South Africa and Mozambique, and encouraging the Southern African Development Community to take more action. However, does the Prime Minister agree that there are more things that he could do now, here? Will he, for instance, consider allowing asylum seekers who are fleeing Mugabe's brutal regime to live and work temporarily in the United Kingdom, until such time as Zimbabwe is more stable and they can return home?
	I also welcome the summit conclusions in favour of carbon capture and storage technology. However, how does the Prime Minister square that approach and the summit's unambiguous conclusion with the strong indications that his Government will go ahead with a new generation of dirty coal power stations that are CCS ready, but not CCS functional, such as the one at Kingsnorth?
	Finally, it is good to see the European Union grappling with the issue of food and fuel prices. However, the Prime Minister's summit-hopping, from Europe to Jeddah, is not enough. We need him to take practical steps here at home, too. So will he emulate the example of other European Union countries, such as Spain, whose Government have clawed back some of the massive subsidies that energy-generating companies have been handed on a plate through the European emissions trading scheme, to compel energy companies to help the fuel poor and to promote energy efficiency in our homes on the scale that is now urgently needed?

Stuart Bell: May I assure the Prime Minister that, notwithstanding the comments of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, every European Council is significant and every European Council reflects the forward march of the Union? In respect of the question about the Irish raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the House should welcome the statement of the Taoiseach to come back in October and explain and define how the Republic of Ireland will the stay at the heart of Europe.
	As to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) about enlargement to the east, does the Prime Minister agree that such enlargement of the 27 member states cannot take place uniquely on the back of the treaty of Nice?

Gordon Brown: I understand the knowledge of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman has given that he was in the country many years ago. I have to say to him that the UN Security Council will meet this afternoon and I believe that there will be a presidential statement. That will require the countries that are part of the UN Security Council and that play a part in its affairs, including the ones he has mentioned, to be able to support that statement. I hope that they will support a statement that says in the strongest terms that the violence is unacceptable. What has led to the opposition leader pulling out of the election is perfectly understandable and a way forward has to be found for the Zimbabwean people, but that will be discussed by the UN Security Council later this afternoon.
	I talked to President Mbeki before I came to the House this afternoon and urged it upon him that there had to be a solution and a way forward found, but he, too, will in my view join the statement that will be made by the UN later this afternoon, which shows that South Africa, too, wants an end to the violence and a solution to the problems we face.

Quentin Davies: First, I congratulate the Prime Minister on the considerable success of the summit and also on the meeting in Saudi Arabia. Does he agree that true leadership consists of being guided by the long-term interests of the country and that, in the case of the EU, that means playing a central, constructive and, indeed, leading role, and in not constantly picking quarrels, sending signals that we do not want to be part of the venture at all and for ever playing to the gallery?

David Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the pilot scheme for carbon capture and storage to the United Kingdom. Only through that means of effort will we deal with the Chinese and Indian problem. If we can develop carbon capture and storage in a way that can be sold, it will be a big step forward. If he wants to do that, the billions of tonnes of coal in the United Kingdom should be used for that purpose, and I suggest that the plant should be in Scotland.

Gordon Brown: We will examine the matters that my hon. Friend has raised. Clearly the sanctions that we are considering are sanctions on individual members of the regime, but I will look at what he has said. I believe that China will support the presidential statement from the United Nations today, and will support both an end to violence and the restoration of conditions in which democracy can happen and flourish in Zimbabwe.

William Hague: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to make that statement and say at the outset that I think that there will be unanimous agreement with what he said about the violence and murder of recent weeks? Should it not now be clear to the world that this is a despotic regime that cares nothing even for the welfare of its own people and that has no democratic credibility whatever? Does he agree that no one should condemn the Movement for Democratic Change for withdrawing from such a manifestly un-free and unfair election? As Morgan Tsvangirai has said, his party was
	"facing a war rather than an election."
	We should commend the bravery of those opposition figures and supporters who campaigned despite the overt threats against them and in the face of appalling violence towards and suffering for their families.
	The response by Zimbabwe's neighbours and the wider international community should be swift, united and decisive, and we welcome everything that the Government have done to encourage such a response. We welcome their commitment to raise the issue of Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council today. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the Government will put actual proposals forward to the Security Council, for instance, on a UN commission of inquiry into the grotesque abuses of human rights taking place in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that unless there is a negotiated solution, Mugabe and those around him must one day be held accountable for the crimes being committed? Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the Government will at least call for and gather support for a United Nations referral to the International Criminal Court?
	The Government announced earlier this year that they would seek an informal moratorium on arms sales to Zimbabwe. Is that still the Government's policy, and is there any possibility of it being achieved? The Foreign Secretary rightly referred to European Union sanctions. This is surely the time for those to be seriously extended and rigorously enforced. In particular, should they not include extending the EU visa ban and assets freeze to associates and relatives of regime members, many of whom currently travel and study in Europe with impunity? The time has surely come for the pusillanimous policy of allowing Mugabe to attend summits with the European Union to be struck down once and for all—there should be no place for the man at any of the world's summit tables.
	I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said, in clarifying the Prime Minister's remarks, about not recognising Robert Mugabe's regime as the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe. On that point, the Foreign Secretary is aware of statements—he listed some of them—by SADC and its leaders that the election should not now go ahead as planned. The President of Zambia, who is also the chairman of SADC, has said that postponement was needed
	"to avert a catastrophe in the region".
	Since that is the view of those countries, and even now the regime seems bent on going ahead with the rerun, does it not follow that it is time for SADC countries to withhold recognition of the legitimacy of the regime?
	Have we not also reached the point at which South Africa's willingness to prop up the Government in Harare is harming South Africa's image in the world and when all friends of that country should call on the South African president to live up to his regional responsibilities?
	There are between 3 million and 4 million Zimbabwean refugees living in neighbouring countries. The latest shocking violence and the economic collapse are expected to create another wave of desperate people fleeing the country. The Foreign Secretary mentioned it in his statement, but can he tell the House what help has been offered to the neighbouring countries in dealing with that problem?
	Whatever happens in Zimbabwe over the next weeks, we must stand ready to continue to support the people. Is he satisfied that we have prepared as fully as possible for the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe at the appropriate time, once the country is set on a clear course towards the rule of law and democracy?
	Finally, from a wider perspective, the early 1990s saw a positive trend towards multi-party elections in Africa. For various countries, they marked a transition from an extended period of authoritarian rule to fledgling democratic government. They held out the possibility that democratic practices might be deepened on that continent. However, the recent use of violence, intimidation and politically motivated harassment of various forms to retain power in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and now, so spectacularly, in Zimbabwe have undermined that trend. Is it not therefore more crucial than ever that we send a message of unity and clarity to the criminal regime of Mugabe and those who may be tempted to use intimidation and brutality against their own people that that can never be accepted as the norm, and that the people of Africa deserve the rule of law and freedom just like the rest of us?

Mike Gapes: The first round of the presidential election was clearly won by Morgan Tsvangirai. The Movement for Democratic Change won the parliamentary elections. Given that this second round is illegitimate now that the opposition have been forced to withdraw, should we not now recognise that fact and do more to help the MDC internationally as well as to help the civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations forced into exile by the Mugabe regime? Should we not do whatever we can internationally not just to de-legitimise Mugabe but to say that the real President is Morgan Tsvangirai?

Tony Lloyd: May I ask my right hon. Friend the following question? Without underestimating the difficulties, will he look at how far Britain can work with SADC and the African Union to ensure that we support the infrastructure in Zimbabwe, which will not only be necessary for delivering humanitarian aid but, in the long run, be the basis for the re-establishment of civil society? Without practical investment now, difficult though it is, and in the future, Zimbabwe will collapse even when Mugabe goes.

Nicholas Winterton: What happens in Zimbabwe will no doubt affect the long-term future of the whole of central southern Africa. While I express gratitude to the Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, for the way in which he has co-operated with Members of this House who take a deep, long-standing interest in Zimbabwe, does he accept that the one person who could bring this catastrophe to an end is Mr. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa? I support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Could we not bring greater pressure to bear on him? Even if switching off the electricity is an extreme act, the people of Zimbabwe have suffered long enough, and they would be prepared to put up with that action if it would bring down Mugabe.

Derek Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend reassure me that there will be no shady deals when Mugabe goes, and that he will be brought to court wherever he may go?
	I am struggling to know the answer to this question, but would it not be possible to start an exile Government—perhaps in South Africa, given that there are 2 million to 3 million Zimbabweans there—and would he raise that point with Mbeki when he sees him in two weeks' time?

Kate Hoey: May I urge Her Majesty's Government to stop being quite so nice to President Mbeki of South Africa? Anyone listening to his remarks last night would wonder whether he was on the same planet as many of us. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider withdrawing Mbeki's invitation to the next G8 summit, who attended the Gleneagles summit on the understanding that he was going to be the person in Africa speaking up for good governance and human rights. He has not honoured his side of the bargain; should we not be looking at our side?

David Miliband: Of all hon. and right hon. Members in the House, my hon. Friend has played a long-term role in standing up for decent values in Zimbabwe. The extension of an invitation to the G8 is to South Africa, not an individual, and it is important that we expand the G8 to include countries such as South Africa. It is also important that we engage with such countries. We should speak plainly of our own views, but we should engage with those countries, and whatever the levels of frustration, the worst signal to send would be that the leading industrialised countries had lost interest in talking to, in this case, those countries democratically elected leaders. Although I totally understand my hon. Friend's frustration, I hope that she agrees, on reflection, that engagement on a clear basis is the preferable way forward.

David Miliband: The issue of EU sanctions on travel or finance, which I think is what Lord Malloch-Brown was talking about, is rightfully on the agenda and is part of the drive. As I said earlier, 131 individuals are currently subject to those sanctions. We should seek to have that extended. What has happened in Zimbabwe has brought home to many people in the European Union the severity of the situation, and that is certainly something that we will be pursuing.

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman. One can always sense when constructive engagement has taken place because the Back Benches are empty on both sides of the House, which is what we see today.
	I should like to proceed by commenting on the first group of Lords amendments, which relate to the effect of the sale on borrowers. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 4 cover the notification of sales to borrowers and, as I underlined in Committee, we have always intended to let borrowers know when their loan has been sold. Having listened to the arguments, we have strengthened that intention—in Lords amendment No. 1—into an obligation for the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to let all affected borrowers know within three months that their loan has been sold.
	Lords amendment No. 4 would mean that, in the unlikely event of an onward sale of the legal title to the loans, the initial loan purchaser would be obliged to take reasonable steps to let the borrower know that their loan had been sold on. Lords amendment No. 5 also relates to onward sales. As I said in earlier stages of these proceedings, the borrower's primary protection in the sales programme lies in the fact that purchasers cannot change the repayment terms, which remain governed by regulations. That is an important protection, but we want the added safeguard that the Secretary of State can enforce any protections contained in the sales contract, including after any onward sale, however unlikely that might be.
	The Bill has from the outset enabled the Secretary of State to insist on being a party in some form or other to onward transfers. Having listened to the arguments put by hon. Members here and in the other place, we have made it a requirement in amendment No. 5 for the Secretary of State to ensure in the initial sales contract that he is party to any subsequent contract transferring legal title to the loans.
	Amendment No. 6 clarifies how the Bill addresses onward sales, putting it beyond doubt that the provisions of clause 3 relate only to the transfer of legal title of the loans. Without that clarification, potential purchasers and investors may be deterred from participating in loan sales in the mistaken belief that the Secretary of State will need to be a party to all transfers and the onward transfer of equitable rights that can take place in the context of a securitisation. That has never been our intention. Seeking to regulate this division of equitable interests would be unnecessary and unworkable, given the complexity of the structures. Only the legal owner has a relationship with the borrower and the student finance system as servicer, so the Secretary of State only needs to be able to regulate the legal owner's dealings with the loans.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will mean that, when making or amending the loan regulations or regulations under section 186 of the Education Act 2002, the Secretary of State must seek to ensure that borrowers will not as a consequence of the amendments be in a worse position simply because their loan has been sold. This provision will apply to all changes in regulations after any loans have been sold, not just where an undertaking may have been made. That represents a strengthening of the statement already made on the record that borrowers will not be adversely affected by their loan being sold. It will, I believe, give borrowers confidence that the commitment is intended to stand the test of time.
	Finally, amendment No. 10 is a minor drafting improvement, expanding a cross-reference in clause 5(4) into a reference to the whole of clause 2 rather than just clause 2(2). That will indicate more clearly that the transfer arrangements in general may provide for exceptions to the presumption that all moneys relating to sold loans should be paid to the purchaser. Such an exemption could cover, for example, penalties relating to compliance with the tax system.
	I am also aware of the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 8, tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I know that the Opposition wish to speak to that amendment, so I will respond to what is said about that later.
	Overall, the amendments in the group represent valuable strengthening and clarification of how we will ensure that the borrowers' interests in the loan sale programme are protected. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Robert Wilson: It seems quite a long time ago that we were last here debating this Bill. In fact, it was last January. It was such a long time ago that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has advanced another year—in fact, he does so today, so I hope that everyone will join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.
	The long time for which the Bill has been in the other place seems to have been extremely well spent, as it appears that there is much for us to agree on today. I think that we can largely welcome what is before us, although, as would be expected of a diligent Opposition, we will wish to explore a few issues in further detail. I hope that I will not detain you for too long, Mr. Deputy Speaker; after all, lengthy periods of detention are Government policy, not Opposition policy, are they not?
	Let me deal first with Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 4 together. They were proposed in response to another amendment tabled in the other place by Baroness Sharp. In moving Government amendment No. 1, Baroness Morgan said that it had
	"always been our clear intention to let borrowers know when their loans are sold. Having reflected on the argument that it would be better to strengthen that intention into an obligation, we propose Amendment No. 1. The Secretary of State would have to take reasonable steps to let all affected borrowers know that their loans have been sold within three months of the transaction."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 707, c. 47.]
	Conservative Members have raised these matters on several occasions, so it would be extremely churlish of us not to welcome these amendments. They build the Government's intention to inform borrowers directly into the Bill, exactly where it should be, and they also give the purchasers of the loan an obligation to do the same. Letting those affected by changes know within three months is appropriate and welcome. However, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister clarified what will constitute "reasonable steps" in those circumstances, both for the Government and indeed for the loan purchasers.
	As the explanatory notes state, amendment No. 5
	"would oblige the Secretary of State to ensure that initial sale contracts contain provision for the Secretary of State to be party to any onward sale contract."
	Conservative Members particularly welcome that concession by the Government. The Minister will acknowledge that it follows considerable pressure from us, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who referred to those matters in his opening remarks. Following debate on Second Reading and in Committee about onward sales, Conservative Members tabled an amendment on Report that would have ensured that the Secretary of State would indeed have to be party to onward sales. A similar amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said during the debate back in January:
	"There are legitimate concerns about collateralised debt...History has taught us that loans can easily be repackaged and, in the end, involve a large number of different purchasers, some of whom, if they are known at all, could be outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State."
	The logic of such wisdom from my hon. Friend was so powerful that obviously, the Minister could not resist.
	Although the Minister expressed the need for flexibility in those matters, he conceded that if an amendment tabled in the other place could be worded in such a way as to ensure that the Secretary of State was party to any onward sale, while maintaining flexibility as to the specific mechanism,
	"we would certainly consider it." ."—[ Official Report, 23 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1558, 1570.]
	The Minister has been as good as his word and has confirmed that today, so we are satisfied that this is an appropriate concession that fulfils our expectations.
	The explanatory notes make it clear, as the Minister did in his opening remarks, that amendment No. 6 is essentially a technical measure. I therefore do not propose to dwell on it and shall move directly to amendment No. 8. I will also speak to amendment No. 9, and to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
	Let me be frank: our amendment is probing and it aims to tease out a little more reassurance from the Minister. We would like further explanation on the record about how those loans might end up in circumstances in which a particular loan structure changed. The explanatory notes state:
	"Lords Amendments 8 and 9 would require the Secretary of State to give consideration to borrowers whose loans have been sold in making or amending loan regulations, and in making or amending regulations under section 186 of the Education Act 2002, so as to"—
	this is the important bit—
	"avoid detriment to any such borrower resulting solely from the fact that the loan is sold."
	Essentially, the Secretary of State must make a comparison to ascertain whether a borrower is worse off as a result of any proposed amendment to regulations. That must be compared with no change at all—that is, with what would have been the situation if the loan had never been sold.
	Lords amendment No. 8 is specifically concerned with the financial impact on borrowers, about which Conservative Members have expressed unease during previous debates. The Minister said on the record, early on in the process of considering the Bill, that the Government
	"want to be able to demonstrate, and for the reality to be, that a graduate repaying their loan finance will see not one iota of difference in the way in which that process is handled, whether their debt is owned by the Government or by the private sector." ——[Official Report, Sale of Student Loans Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 14, Q33.]
	Conservative Members—and those with loans, watching avidly on BBC Parliament— will welcome that statement, which is to be commended.
	However, Lords amendment No. 8 was tabled in response to concerns that Lords amendment No. 2 to clause 2 might leave borrowers worse off. In moving the amendment in the Lords, Baroness Morgan stated:
	"No borrower will be in a worse position for their loan having been sold and, in developing the amendment on undertakings, we have reflected on the importance of borrowers being fully reassured on that fact. That is why Amendment No. 6"—
	as it was numbered in the other place—
	"will mean that, when amending the regulations, the Secretary of State must seek to ensure that borrowers will not be in a worse position as a consequence of their loan being sold."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 54.]
	We welcome the amendment and the noble Baroness's comments, but we have some concerns about the effectiveness of her assurance, and that of the Minister, to borrowers.
	In particular, we are concerned about the wording of the amendment, which does not appear to be as strong as it could be. Our amendment would give further certainty by leaving out the words "aim to". We are uncertain what the Secretary of State would achieve by "aiming to" ensure that no borrower whose loan was transferred would be in a worse position. I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on what exactly is meant by "aim to". Would it, for example, be possible under the amendment for borrowers to be objectively worse off, so long as the Secretary of State had aimed to prevent that? Having read the certainty in the Minister's words, and in those of the noble Baroness in the other place, I notice that Lords amendment No. 8 does not give the same level of reassurance and commitment. Why not? Will the Minister explain fully to the House why that was not possible?
	I am also keen to learn the legal status of the current wording. What has the Minister been advised about the steps that would have to be taken to ensure that he had fulfilled his duty under the amendment? What advice has he been given about the possible legal interpretation of the amendment if a transfer were subject to judicial review? By removing the words "aim to", our amendment would give a copper-bottomed guarantee to borrowers that they would not be worse off as a result of their loan being transferred.
	Our main concern is for those who hold loans. We want to ensure that the exercise has no detrimental impact on them whatever. I urge the Minister to consider our amendment carefully and to fulfil his and the wider Government's earlier reassurances to the House.
	Finally, on amendment No. 10 to clause 5, the Government have conceded that the original wording in the Bill was not as clear as it should have been. As Baroness Morgan stated in her letter to Baroness Verma, dated 4 April, the amendment clarifies what the Government had always originally intended, and is "a minor drafting change". That implies that the matter does not need much debate. But will the Minister put it on record that the provision is what the Government always intended, and that it is indeed "a minor drafting change"?
	As the Minister has agreed, there is no doubt that the Bill has been much improved by Her Majesty's Opposition's thorough inspection and the Lords amendments. Therefore, I thank the Minister and his colleagues for the professional and constructive way in which they have engaged with us.

Bill Rammell: In those circumstances, the Government would have to respond very quickly and put that right. In dealing with this amendment, I asked officials to envisage for me the circumstances that might pertain in such a situation. We find it very difficult to envisage such a situation and to identify the problems that might occur. However, this is a belt-and-braces response that makes it clear that there would be a responsibility on the Government, in those unforeseen circumstances, to put the situation right, but the purpose of the wording is simply to ensure that if any unintended consequence of an amendment to regulations had such an effect, the repayment regime would remain lawful pending correction of the unintended error, which would clearly be a responsibility for Government. Otherwise, there is a risk of potentially important aspects of the intended and proper repayment regime being rendered unlawful because of minor errors. That would not be in anyone's interests.
	Although the Government's commitment to the borrower is clear, in this context, we consider the proposed amendment to the amendment to be too inflexible to work. Having listened to the concerns expressed, and responded on the parliamentary record to them, I now hope that the Opposition will be able to withdraw their amendment.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

John Hayes: Perhaps I might start by again echoing the spirit evoked by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, and indeed by the Minister: a determination to ensure that the Bill does what it is supposed to, but, equally, to proceed in a spirit of co-operation wherever possible. I will not say collaboration, but there certainly should be co-operation—and to that end, both in this place and the other place, the official Opposition have done their best to improve the Bill.
	It is in that spirit that I speak to the amendment that stands in my name, and that represents the Opposition's position on Lords amendment No. 2, which was introduced by the Government. It was a significant addition to the Bill and is therefore worthy of detailed scrutiny here. By its nature, it has not been discussed here until now, and I think we might say unusually so. Although it is of course the Government's privilege—indeed right—to move amendments in the Lords, to do so in such a fundamental way is unusual; I say no more than that.
	The amendment that we are seeking to amend is about transfer arrangements, particularly undertakings by the Secretary of State about the power to make loan regulations. As you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendment goes into some particulars, although I will not discuss them exhaustively. Our amendment is designed to leave out paragraph (a) of the Government amendment that speeds its way here from the Lords. The reason why is that the powers granted by that amendment are very permissive and wide-ranging. I shall detail the explanatory notes, if I might, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is important:
	"Lords Amendment 2 would enable the Secretary of State to include in the sales contract with a purchaser undertakings about the exercise of the power to make loan regulations (which include terms and conditions of student loans). Such amendments to the loan regulations would have effect in relation to sold and unsold loans. The intention of the amendment is to reduce the uncertainty about changes which the Secretary of State could make to the terms and conditions of the loans."
	The question of certainty—to whom, and about what—is of great importance when considering the amendment, which has already been subject to considerable debate in the Lords. Members present will have read with some care the record of that debate, but what they may not have been privy to is some of the correspondence surrounding this matter. In a letter to Baroness Vermer dated 4 April, Baroness Morgan, who leads for the Government in the Lords on these matters, indicated that the amendment was principally about value for money. Following discussions with the Government's adviser on the loan book sale, Deutsche Bank, she argues that it has become necessary for the Government to think again about the precise nature of the likely sale and its circumstances. She says in the letter:
	"Because we are legislating for a long-term programme of sales"—
	the Minister, indeed all the Government Front Benchers, have made it clear that this is enabling legislation, and we understand that these sales may take place over a considerable period—
	"and want to ensure sales achieve good value for money we think we ought to have at our disposal more than one way in which investors can be given confidence that a change in the terms and conditions of repaying the loans will not affect the value of the asset they have bought."
	Let me put that into rather clearer terms for the benefit of the House and, indeed, the record. The gist of it is this. If potential purchasers of part of the loan book were able to suggest that they were buying an unquantified risk, they might well drive the price down, and they might do so in circumstances in which they felt that the Secretary of State could change the loan terms, even though they had bought the product. It is perfectly acceptable for the Government to say, following advice, that that would make the whole process untenable, and that a potential purchaser would—if I may put it in the terms sometimes used in these circumstances—have the Government's hand twisted up behind their collective back. No salesman wants to be in that situation, and in these terms the Minister is indeed the salesman for the Government, trying to sell the loan book at the best possible price. That is certainly in the interest of taxpayers.
	However, having made the judgment that that was perfectly arguable and would justify the kind of amendment that the Government have tabled, Ministers indicated in subsequent discussions in the Lords that the reason for their amendment was rather different. They actually indicated that the amendment concerns the uncertain status of the loan book after sale and whether it would be counted as sold by the Office for National Statistics. In other words, on the one hand we were being told that this is a necessary change to facilitate the best commercial relationship with potential purchasers—to secure the best deal, if I might put it that way—and on the other, we were being told that it is a technical requirement to ensure that the asset had been shifted, so far as the ONS was concerned, from the public to the private sector. In the Lords Committee debate, Baroness Morgan stated:
	"We do not want to put future Governments in a position where the only means they have to address the issue of future policy change became something that, under future rules, led to the transaction not counting as a true sale. We know that this is a real risk, as the classification rules have changed significantly since the previous sales of student loans a decade ago and we would not now be able to sell student loans in the way we did then."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2008; Vol. 701, c. 192.]
	So I think it fair to say that there is some confusion about the advice that Ministers received from the sales arranger, their adviser Deutsche Bank. Did that advice also concern whether a transaction would count as a true sale or was there separate advice from a separate source that sponsored—encouraged—the Government to construct and propose their amendment? Was the advice only about value for money, an issue to which I shall return in relation to Lords amendment No. 7?
	The fact that the sales arranger thought it possible that the terms of the sale needed to be revised raises some questions, particularly in the current financial climate, about whether a good value deal can be secured, especially for the first sale. The essence of my point is to discover which is the more important to the Government: is it, as we have now been led to understand, the technical change that they claim that they have to make to satisfy the ONS—that position is perfectly feasible and supportable—or is it, as we were first led to believe, that the Government fear that they will not be able to sell the loan book, in part or as a whole, at an attractive price unless they make the product altogether more agreeable from the perspective of potential purchasers? If that is the reason driving the Government, the spectre—I do not want to be alarmist in any way, because that is not in my character—of the loan book being sold off at a price that would not be in taxpayers' interests, at a time that would not be optimal and in a fashion that would not be agreeable to this House or to those whom we represent begins to hover over our otherwise agreeable proceedings.
	That explains the reason for our amendment (a). Discussions have taken place on the Floor of the House, in Committee, in the Lords and privately about these matters, but we felt it important to put our concerns on the record in the form of our amendment. Concern was expressed in the Lords about the permissive nature of the Government's amendment, and I have made reference to that. Our amendment (a) would enable the Minister to give undertakings that are enforceable in law and that bind the hands of his successors. It would enable Ministers not only to give undertakings that the loan regulations will not be changed, but to give undertakings so as to achieve a specific result. Our amendment (a) proposes to remove paragraph (a) from Lord amendment No. 2, but it is essentially a probing amendment, which doubtless comes as a relief to Ministers. It aims to ascertain what undertakings may be made by Ministers in this regard. Could the undertakings have an impact on the threshold for loan repayments or the interest rate for repayments?
	My principal concern is, as it has been throughout these proceedings, not only for recipients of student loans, but for taxpayers. We must ensure that we secure best value for money as this asset moves from the public to the private sector.

John Hayes: My right hon. Friend's lucidity is matched only by his assiduity. He makes his point with a force that I would be reluctant to use. I mentioned the possibility of inappropriate sales at an inappropriate time, but as ever he draws the issue into sharp focus. It is entirely possible that the Government might be forced to sell part of the loan book at the least desirable time, in the circumstances that he describes. That would be scandalous, because the loan book is an important public asset. It is right that we should consider selling it—that has been Conservative policy for some years—and we welcome the spirit that lies behind the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. We need to get the terms and conditions right, as well as the circumstances, and ensure that Parliament has the ability to scrutinise the sale.
	The report that the Government will bring to the House on the sale will include, as we have argued both publicly and privately with Ministers, any advice given by the Treasury about the assessment of value for money. The Minister has said throughout that a value-for-money framework lies at the heart of the Government's strategy, and we would simply argue that that should be something to which all hon. Members have access so that they can test the Government's adoption of the powers in the Bill against the circumstances in which the loans are sold. I am delighted that the Minister has moved a considerable way towards our position on that point by adding an amendment that makes the report a statutory requirement and requires it to be laid within three months of the date on which the Secretary of State enters into transfer arrangements.
	So we will get the report, understand the advice that has been given to the Government and see the value-for-money framework. That would mean that the Opposition —indeed all hon. Members—would be able to scrutinise the Government accordingly. Whatever pressure has been put on the Minister by the Treasury, he will be answerable for the circumstances of the sale, credit crunch or no credit crunch.
	Our amendment to Lords amendment No. 7 would insert the requirement that
	"The report must also include an assessment of the impact of the sale on borrowers."
	The effect on borrowers should also be taken into account, given that no impact assessment was made when the Bill was published and I understand that the Government are unlikely to add one at this late stage. At the very least, a retrospective analysis of the impact on borrowers should form part of the report that the Government make to the House. I have tested the Minister on this point privately. I asked him in writing—I am sure that we would be willing to make that correspondence public—why there was no impact assessment originally, why one should not be made now and why, given the permissive nature of the amendments introduced in the Lords, we should not test the issue even at this late stage.
	Sadly, even given the Minister's eminent sense of fair play and professionalism, he has yet to bring an impact assessment before the House. It is, therefore, all the more important that the impact on borrowers be included in the report that we get retrospectively. I shall be interested to hear his comments on that. We are delighted that this amendment was tabled. We first raised our concerns on Second Reading and in Committee, and pointed out that it would be "useful" to have a provision on value for money that was set in stone. On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) moved an amendment that would have placed value-for-money criteria on the face of the Bill. At the time the Minister described the amendment as unnecessary and I am glad that, following detailed discussions and correspondence, we have been able to find a way forward.
	On Second Reading, the Minister explained that the loan book had last been valued at £18.1 billion, and he said that it was the Government's intention to raise £6 billion in receipts over the next three years—almost exactly a third of the book's value. I hope that he will be able to give us some idea of the Government's immediate intentions. Do they intend to sell a third of the loan book over the next six months to a year? If they do not intend to sell a third, what proportion do they intend to sell? We would also like some idea of the timetable, given that these amendments deal with value for money, and it is difficult for us to understand the scale of the issue unless we understand the detail of the Government's intentions.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the credit crunch and the uncertain financial markets, which have worsened since Second Reading, which was held on 22 November last year. It would be useful to know whether any subsequent valuation of the loan book has been made, because it may well be that the Government need to sell more than a third to raise the stated £6 billion. It could be less, of course—I do not want to be too pessimistic.

John Hayes: That would be nirvana, a perfect outcome. We would support the Bill with alacrity on the basis that we would spend the cash, and we would, of course, put it to altogether better use than the present Administration. However, I do not wish to be unkind. After all, it is my birthday and I am even more tempted to be generous than my character leads me to be every other day of the year.
	We do not know whether the value of the loan book has gone up or down since November. We can guess, based on market conditions, but it would be useful if the Minister could give us a little more detail. He has told us on numerous occasions that if value for money cannot be ensured, the sale will not go ahead. This amendment will ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny takes place, but it is also important that we have some idea of the effect on borrowers. Our amendment would ensure that borrowers had that certainty about their future circumstances.
	As I said, it is unusual for the Government to table as significant an amendment as Lords amendment No. 2 to a Bill after its Commons stage. When the Bill was introduced, a full impact assessment was not conducted because, as I argued, the Government did not feel that it was necessary. They said that no aspect of the Bill would
	"create a material impact on borrowers, higher education institutions or employers".
	However, the new provisions will allow the Secretary of State either to fix or to change regulations in relation to those loans that are to be sold, with a consequent material impact on borrowers. Given that Lords amendment No. 2 changes the terms of the Bill, one possible way forward would be for the Government to conduct a retrospective assessment of the impact of each sale on the holders of student loans. The permissive nature of the amendment has created considerable uncertainty about the potential impact of sales and a full assessment would provide much-needed clarity on that point and thus might allay Opposition concerns, as I said when I wrote to the Minister about these matters.
	I want to say a few words about Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 14. The explanatory notes on the Lords amendments say:
	"These amendments would make drafting changes to the clause on sharing of information with purchasers and potential purchasers. Lords Amendments 11 and 12 would make explicit that HMRC information may be disclosed in relation to loans that have not yet been sold, as well as those that have been sold. Restrictions already contained in the Bill restrict the disclosure of personalised data to actual purchasers and their agents."
	The Minister has repeatedly made it clear that data would be anonymised in as much as they needed to be shared—for example, for accounting purposes. The explanatory notes go on:
	"Amendment 13 would define the permitted onward disclosure of anonymised HMRC data by reference to the purpose of disclosure—in connection with loans that have been or may be transferred—rather than by reference to the identity of parties who may receive such data. Amendment 14 would make explicit that the narrow group to which onward disclosure of personalised HMRC data is permissible does include loan purchasers' auditors."
	It would be useful for the Minister to say a further word about all that.
	There have been doubts about the maintenance and transfer of personal data. I do not want to raise again the issue of the failures and errors of the Government in handling data. To do so would perhaps be harsh on the Minister, who has not been personally responsible for such problems. However, he takes collective responsibility for the shambolic behaviour of those on the Labour Front Bench and, as a result, it is important that we have assurances from him today about precisely what will happen in respect of data handling.
	We are pleased that the Government have made amendments to the Bill to clarify the provisions on who will have access to HMRC data. We have expressed concerns throughout the passage of the Bill, in the measured way that I have today, about the danger of data falling into the wrong hands, being misused or, heaven forbid, being lost altogether. That danger is particularly acute if the book is broken up into many parts as a result of onward sales.
	The Minister said earlier that he does not expect the loan book to be collateralised and sold on. He has made that point repeatedly during our considerations, but I find it hard to believe. It might well be sold on as that is the nature of the sale of debt. I accept his assurances that control can be exercised in respect of the initial sale, but the hon. Member for Bristol, West was right to insist that, because of the potentially convoluted and complex nature of the data that will be held and shared, a clear audit trail is very important.
	I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the Student Loans Company will be the responsible agency for that information, but once again borrowers will want assurances about not only the accuracy of the data that are being transferred but where the data will reside, who has access to them and who might get access to them by fair means or foul. It is important that the Minister should say a word or two more given the prevailing circumstances, not all of his making, of public doubts about data, their maintenance and their security.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to come back specifically on Lords amendment No. 2 and our amendment to it. I hope that he will say a further word about the security of data and that he will also tell us something about the reason for the amendment and the background to it, in order to clear up the uncertainty that has arisen from the original letter from Baroness Morgan and the subsequent discussion. I hope that he might also give us some feel of the value of the book and the Government's intentions in respect of sales, of how those sales might operate and of how the report to Parliament might shape up in practice. All Members of this House are determined that borrowers' and taxpayers' interests should be preserved. This House is the place to ensure that Ministers are held to account accordingly.
	I hope that our amendment, our response to Government amendments and the views expressed by Opposition Members in the other place and here have made those matters paramount in the Minister's mind, so we wait to hear him express his thoughts in a few moments' time.

Bill Rammell: This group of amendments deals with the process by which the Government may give undertakings concerning amendments to regulations, with how the Government will report on each sale and with how information about borrowers will be handled. Let me start by being explicitly clear about the value-for-money framework. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have made it clear that the sales would not take place unless we could demonstrate value for money. The Government have published forecasts of anticipated receipts of some £6.3 billion from the proposed sales programme over the comprehensive spending review period. However, the key point is that the amounts are forecasts rather than commitments. The Government are committed to the student loans sale programme, but only if any sale represents good value for money. That should be a significant reassurance.
	I turn specifically to amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 15, which are about undertakings. They respond to expert advice that we have received from our sales arranger, Deutsche bank, which was engaged after Report and Third Reading in the House. For us to achieve good value for money on behalf of the taxpayer, potential purchasers must understand what is being sold. Financial institutions can model the economic and credit risks that we wish to transfer away from the Government, but not the political risk of Ministers using their powers to change the conditions of repayment—and, consequently, predicted cash flows to the purchaser. If potential purchasers believed that the Government might alter an asset in an unpredictable way after selling it, that would seriously reduce what those purchasers would be prepared to pay.
	The Bill already provides the option of offering compensation if future policy changes compromise the value of the transferred asset. However, we have been advised that the Government might achieve better value for money if they could give undertakings about how regulations governing student loans may or may not change terms and conditions in future. The impact that a compensation mechanism may have on the size and timing of future cash flows may contain too much uncertainty for investors. Having the power to give undertakings also gives flexibility to cater for possible changes in the classification rules, which are currently being redrafted by EUROSTAT.

Bill Rammell: As I have made clear throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we expect the terms and conditions to be the same regardless of whether the student loan has been sold. The impact on the borrower should be exactly the same.
	I was referring to the EUROSTAT redrafting process. Changes in the rules, which occur from time to time, can have a material impact on the ability to offer compensation. It would be unwise to have only one means of addressing the issue that might, under rules updated after the current redrafting or a future alteration, prevent a true sale. That would negate part of the purpose of transferring the loans from the public to the private sector. I can give the response that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked for in respect of the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Morgan. She made it clear in the other place that the amendment that gives powers to make undertakings is about ensuring that a sale can yield good value for money and that a true sale can release resources for use on Government priorities. It provides an option for the Government to use in realising both those aims.

Bill Rammell: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's point. We have made it clear throughout that we expect borrowers—graduates—to be treated in exactly the same way whether their debt has been sold to the private sector or remains with the Government. There should be—and there will be, as far as this Government are concerned—equality of treatment.
	Another point was made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is no longer with us—

John Hayes: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. He is right: this has been a model of good parliamentary dialogue. We have had a useful and constructive series of engagements on the Floor of the House, in the other place, in Committee, and, if I may put it this way, behind the scenes. We have exchanged letters between Ministers and shadow Ministers in a manner that was altogether more co-operative than the public might expect or anticipate. They would be alarmed if they knew quite how friendly our relations have been, because some love to paint us in a less favourable light than we deserve, do they not, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
	The Minister has made important changes to the Bill, which in essence give the House the power to assess the Government's behaviour in an entirely reasonable way. That is to say, it can make an informed judgment based on empirical evidence about whether value for money has been assured. We now hear, and I am delighted that the Minister has said so, that that will include an assessment of the impact on borrowers of just the kind that I asked for in my remarks a few moments ago. On that basis, how could I possibly complain about the amendments before us, or the Minister's response to them?
	The Opposition have fulfilled their purpose. We have scrutinised the legislation with assiduity, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), other Conservative Members, and indeed, although it is against my instincts ever to be nice to Liberals, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). On the basis of those assurances, I am delighted to say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 3 to 16 agreed to.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.
	The Government agreed during the debates that we had during the passage of what became the Terrorism Act 2006 that there should be a requirement for the annual renewal by Parliament of section 23 of the Act, which extends the maximum period of detention of terrorist suspects from 14 to 28 days. The order before us, therefore, disapplies section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 for a period of one year beginning with 25 July 2008, thereby extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects of 28 days for a further year.
	Without rehearsing our deliberations on the most recent Counter-Terrorism Bill, I can say that, as the House will know, nothing in it impacts on this provision. Indeed, the provision for a specific extension beyond 28 days—in grave and exceptional circumstances—is predicated and built on the annual renewal of 28 days. The measure is important in itself, and in the context of the Bill. The subject of pre-charge detention has been the subject of considerable debate over the past 12 months in this House and, in the broader sense, in the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do not want to go over those debates here, but it is worth reminding ourselves why Parliament agreed to the exceptional 28-day limit.
	As the House will be aware, terrorist investigations can be hugely time-consuming and the increase from 14 to 28 days was, the House judged, necessary, primarily as a result of greater use of encrypted computers and mobile phones, the increasingly complex nature of terrorist networks that have to be investigated and, not least, the increasingly international nature of terrorist networks, meaning greater language difficulties and a greater need to gather evidence from abroad. The safety of the public is, of course, paramount and it is the responsibility of the Government and security and law enforcement agencies to protect our citizens from the threats posed by terrorism.
	The first priority must be to stop terrorist activity taking place rather than dealing with its consequences. However, where we do identify those who are engaged in terrorism, we need to ensure that we have the right tools to investigate and prosecute those involved. In much police work, the investigation takes place after a crime has been committed. In such cases there will often be a victim, possible suspects, witnesses to the crime and forensic material from the crime scene. The police will investigate the crime and may arrest the suspect when they have already gathered a considerable amount of admissible evidence. In such cases, only a few days may be needed to question the suspect before a decision is taken on whether to charge them for an offence.
	The House knows that terrorism cases are different, but none the less, to the full extent possible, they should be dealt with in the normal and routine context of our laws. However, because of the severe consequences of a terrorist attack, the police and security services invariably need to intervene before it takes place. Critically, they may need to intervene at a very early stage in an investigation, before they have had the opportunity to gather any admissible evidence, and on the basis of limited intelligence about who and what is involved. As Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick said recently, in his evidence to the Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee:
	"In some investigations, we have seen that"—
	attack planning activities—
	"materialise so quickly that on public safety grounds we have had to act pre-emptively before we have had the opportunity to exploit pre-arrest evidential opportunities. That places a huge burden on the senior investigating officer." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Bill Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 14, Q8.]
	Few would disagree with the need to pre-empt such attacks. That is why UK legislation has, since 2000, provided specific powers of arrest and detention in relation to terrorism.
	The provisions for extended pre-charge detention for up to 28 days in the Terrorism Act 2006 take account of these practical and unique difficulties, and the decision to increase pre-charge detention limits from 14 to 28 days has, I believe, been justified by subsequent events and it means that we have been able to bring forward prosecutions that otherwise might not have been possible. Indeed, both the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have made it clear that the 28-day limit is necessary. From when the power came into force in July 2006, six people have been held for between 27 and 28 days, three of whom were charged.
	We accept that the Government should endeavour to provide detailed statistical information on the use of the 28-day limit in advance of the renewal debates and, once the joint Home Office-police review of pre-charge detention statistics has been completed, we expect to be able to provide more detailed information on the outcome of detention, including the charges brought against those charged. Let us be clear: the application for extension is a rigorous process. A Crown Prosecution Service lawyer makes the application for extensions beyond 14 days, and the senior investigating officer is present. Defence solicitors are provided in advance of each application with a written document setting out the grounds for the application. The applications are usually strenuously opposed and can last several hours. The officer may be questioned vigorously by the defence solicitor about all aspects of the case.
	Some have accused the police of holding a suspect for the maximum period simply because it is available. I have to say that that is abject nonsense. The police investigate as quickly as possible. They must do so, and they are obliged to do so under the law. Nothing in the Terrorism Act 2000, or afterwards, changes that. The essential principle of arresting someone with a view to charging at the earliest opportunity pertains under terrorism law, as it does with all other law. The police investigate as quickly as possible—they must do. They would not detain anyone for longer than was absolutely necessary, which has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that only six people have been held for the maximum period since the power came into force, and none have been held for the maximum period since the 28-day limit was renewed last year.
	Indeed, when applying to the court for an extension of detention, the police and CPS have to present substantial evidence for further detention. A judge may not grant extensions of detention where he or she is not satisfied that the investigation is being pursued diligently and expeditiously. Judges can, of course, grant fewer than the full seven days' extension requested—they have done so—and, indeed, they can grant no extension if they feel further detention is not justified.
	In an evidence sessions of the Public Bill Committee on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, Sue Hemming, the head of the counter-terror division in the CPS, made it clear that that view prevails. She said:
	"We certainly did not keep people in unnecessarily. There has to be a certain amount of time for the police to investigate... If you arrest people, the police have to look at what the plot is, who is involved and what the evidence is. As with any case, the pre-charge detention time has to allow a certain amount of time for the police to investigate and question. I seriously dispute any allegation that we kept people in any longer than we had to."
	In the same session, Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions said:
	"The idea that we have sufficient evidence after 14 days, but, for some reason best known to ourselves wait until days 26 or 27 to charge is wrong." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 55, Q141.]
	Those who keep putting about the myth that somehow those who were held for a period closer to 27 or 28 days were incarcerated while the prosecution and the police twiddled their thumbs or did some knitting are palpably wrong. I deprecate the comments of Liberty, which were utterly wrong, on the eve of the recent consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Bill on fact and fiction about the existing 28-day pre-charge detention limit. Liberty spoke rather cleverly, as it does, about the Government and the police—and, I presume, the CPS and the DPP—sexing up the evidence. It is not for anyone in the, House or established pressure groups, to second-guess after the event the investigating, prosecuting and policing strategy of the police or the CPS and DPP during frenetic days of frenetic activity. It is a shame when that happens.
	I am afraid that a former Member, David Davis, perpetuates the myth on his website, and that is a matter for profound regret. By all means let people take up the matter with me or with the Government—the politicians and those who argue policy positions—but I deprecate people attacking, by inference if nothing else, the integrity of our police and the prosecution service.
	Liberty also issued a much less duplicitous document, entitled "The Real Consensus", with a sub-heading, "Extensions Beyond 28 days: Unnecessary and Counter-productive", which, for at least today's debate, I will pray in aid. I did not do that last week or the preceding week, but a series of quotations, with which hon. Members will be familiar, emphasise the consensus that has emerged on 28 days. Whatever our view of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, that broad consensus, albeit flaking round the edges in some quarters, about 28 days still exists and commands the House's support.

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a consensus, given the evidence currently available. That may change. Let me give some evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's remarks and those of the Minister, which also reflect my view, about the consensus on 28 days, which has been agreed by the House and the other place.
	In evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Director of Public Prosecutions said:
	"Well, we welcomed the increase to 28 days and we felt that a period of 14 days was not sufficient. It seems to us that 28 days has been effective and has provided us with powers, if you like, supervised by the courts, which have been useful to us as prosecutors in making appropriate charging decisions within that period. We are, on the basis of what has occurred since then, satisfied with 28 days. We have not had any cases which would require a longer period than that"
	The former shadow Home Secretary recently received a parliamentary answer in which the Home Secretary stated that
	"from 20 January 2004 to date, 11 individuals have been held for over 14 days pre-charge detention, six individuals were held for the maximum 27-28 days, of which three individuals were charged, and three individuals were released without charge."—[ Official Report, 2 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 745W.]
	The figures showed that of the four suspects held without charge for up to 20 days, all were charged.
	Twenty-eight days is longer than we would like to see in our common law—when I say "we", I mean most of those who want to scrutinise these propositions, which have implications for civil liberties. Twenty-eight days is a long time; indeed, it is certainly longer than in other parts of the western, industrialised, democratic world. None the less, we believe that the extension from 14 days to 28 days was right, on the evidence available since it came into effect, including the evidence as of today.
	The Minister and hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I will not recite anything about the extension to 42 days that the House voted on recently, although not because I shy away from the arguments that my friend and colleague, the former Member for Member for Haltemprice and Howden put forward; indeed, there were powerful and passionate arguments on both sides. Rather, before closing my remarks, I would like to ask a couple of questions about two issues mentioned in the debate held this time last year, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, now the shadow Home Secretary, stood in my position and debated the issue with the Minister.
	The first question relates to concerns raised about the operation of what was then the recently introduced code H of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, dealing with terrorist cases. It seems moderately clear that the rules designed to cover the detention of a person for what is usually 24 or 48 hours are not suitable when someone is in custody for a much longer period. Can the Minister share his thinking, or any evidence, on how frequently individuals have been transferred to prison from police cells during the period of detention, and on how the system has operated in bringing them back to police stations for further interviews?
	Other concerns were raised about how code H could in theory allow for a person to be questioned for hour after hour, over a period that could extend to 28 days. I am sure that that has not happened in practice. However, can the Minister give us his analysis of how the code is operating? There are, I am sure, breaks for rest. Could he shed any light on that, provided that doing so would not breach any operational or national security considerations?
	The reason why that is important is not a wishy-washy, bleeding-heart liberal reason, as some outside this place might characterise my questions—I am sure that the Minister would not characterise them like that—but because of fears that any statement made in a period running up to 28 days could be challenged by defence counsel at any future trial, on the basis of a suggestion that coercion had been involved in the defendant's giving of evidence, because of excessive and prolonged questioning, which had perhaps taken place without the benefit of any requisite breaks. That concern is thrown up by what, last year, was the relatively new code H under the 1984 Act.
	My second and final question also relates to something that was raised in last year's debate, and is about how longer periods of detention without charge might allow for press speculation that made the prospect of a fair trial difficult or impossible. The Minister said that he hoped that the Crown Prosecution Service would put out a paper on that issue. Can he give us an update on that, and on what his thinking is on the subject?
	Both my questions concern the operation of the regime to which the order relates. To conclude, I hope that we can get away from the idea that those who propose the longest period of detention without charge are the toughest on terrorists. Her Majesty's Opposition believe that the House must be robust in doing our best to protect the security of the people in our country. However, that must always be balanced—this is always a difficult judgment—against our British values, parts of which rely on an adherence to civil liberties, as one of our principal weapons in defeating those who wish to harm us. It is in that spirit of friendly inquiry to the Minister that I close my remarks.

Andrew Dismore: I rise in part to speak to the Joint Committee on Human Rights reports that have been tagged to today's debate, all of which start from the basic premise that we have a duty to protect the public from terrorism and violence.
	As has been said, it is important to recognise that the 28-day extension was to be an exception and that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it amounted to a compromise. If we are considering extending that exception, we have to proceed with caution and consider the matter properly, bearing in mind that the power has not been used for at least a year since it was last renewed. It is Parliament's duty to scrutinise the Government's request, as put forward in the order.
	I for one would not try to second-guess the Government's assessment, although that is not primarily because of the reason advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) about evidence to support the Government's case; rather, it is simply that we have practically no evidence at all, one way or the other, of how the 28-day rule has operated in practice, on the very few occasions on which it has been used.
	Of course, we have plenty of evidence about the general level of the terrorist threat, but that is a red herring in this debate, because the 28-day power comes into effect only once a plot has crystallised and those involved have been arrested, and once it has been shown that the 14-day period is inadequate for their questioning. What we need to consider is not the general level of the threat, but cases where people have been arrested, questioned and ultimately charged.
	To enable Parliament to review the issues properly and effectively, we need a detailed and meaningful analysis. I had hoped that the independent reviewer would be in a position to provide that. The Government said that it was the intention to provide the independent reviewer's report before the renewal debate. They are as good as their word, because it was published this morning, although that has not really given hon. Members enough time to scrutinise properly what the independent review has to say, never mind the time for a Select Committee such as mine or the Home Affairs Committee to read what he had to say. I hope that in future the Government will make the report available 28 days before the debate, as we have recommended, so that it can be properly considered. Indeed, it was a pity that the report was not available for the debates a couple of weeks ago, because the independent reviewer has brought forward useful information for both sides of the argument, as it were, on 42 days.
	We now have the independent reviewer's report, but he says nothing at all about the use of the 28-day procedure. In his 2006 report, he did not give any detail at all—not even the number of cases—about the 28-day cases in that period. In paragraph 103 of his report, he says:
	"I have not been asked by Ministers to provide a detailed analysis of this system. It would be difficult for me to do so in any meaningful way without becoming effectively embedded in some cases from arrest to verdict, to gain the full picture. This has not been part of the reviewer's tasks, but could be included if required by Parliament. I should welcome clarity as to whether this is required".
	I am sure that we would all welcome clarity on that issue. Someone needs to get into these cases to find out what has been going on, so as to avoid the kind of speculation that my right hon. Friend the Minister says is coming forward from Liberty's putting two and two together to make five about what has been going on. The only way in which we can answer these questions is by having an independent person who can get into the meat and find out what has gone on.
	My right hon. Friend has indicated, in response to our recommendation that there should be an detailed annual report from the Home Secretary, that the Government will put a memorandum in the Library containing relevant information, such as the breakdown of detention periods and the charges that have been brought. In fact, we have no information on any of the cases from the past two years, except for the fact that the power has not been used at all since it was last renewed a year ago.
	We need to have some facts, however, as is made clear in Lord Carlile's report. We know that six people have been held for the maximum period, as my right hon. Friend said, and that three have been charged and are awaiting trial. That obviously means that three were released when they came up against the 28-day wire. Once the cases that have been prosecuted are over, we shall need to analyse them to find out what evidence was available and at what stage.
	My right hon. Friend has attacked Liberty for saying that the charges should have been brought earlier. It may well be that those individuals could have been charged within 14 days on the threshold charge basis, but that the Crown Prosecution Service decided to hang on to see whether it could get sufficient evidence to bring a full code charge within 28 days. I am not saying that that is right or wrong as a factual analysis, or indeed whether it is desirable to hold people longer in order to bring a full code charge as opposed to a threshold charge. We simply do not know. In future debates on renewal—assuming that we have such occasions—we need to be able to discuss whether it is better to hold people longer to get a full code charge than to charge them on a threshold basis at the earliest opportunity. That is a debate that we ought to have in Parliament as part of the way in which these cases are dealt with. As Lord Carlile says, one of the problems with a threshold charge is that it could amount to an abuse, although in practice I do not think that that has been the case, as my Committee noted in its previous report on the 42-day issue.
	We need to know when and how often people are being questioned, although I accept that that is not conclusive in relation to the need to hold someone for a particular period. Most of an inquiry is taken up not by questioning but by other activities such as breaking down computers, analysing phone records and making inquiries overseas. The fact remains, however, that we need to know the answers to these questions. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave us some figures on that when we were looking at the post-charge questioning issue a couple of weeks ago. On that basis, people were not questioned for any great length of time in the 28-day period, if his figures were right. We need to know what was going on in that regard. We also need to know what charges were ultimately brought, the reasons why those charges were chosen and, ultimately, whether the individuals were convicted. That is the kind of detailed, qualitative analysis that we need when we are having these renewal debates, to ensure that the 28-day power is being used properly and that any exceptional extensions are appropriate.
	We must also remember the three people who were not charged. There is no reason why we should not start to carry out some of this analysis of their cases now. For example, we could find out what interviewing took place and over what period, and whether the investigation was conducted with the urgency required of the system. I make no allegations as to whether it was or not; I am quite happy to accept my right hon. Friend's word that it was conducted with urgency. However, that is his assurance—

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend says that it is also the DPP's assurance, and that might well be the case. However, that does not give the same guarantee as an independent assessment would give, which I think will be necessary in future to ensure public confidence that a case has been scrutinised as effectively and in as much depth as possible. My Committee would like to see an independent review, perhaps by the Metropolitan Police Authority, although the Government's previous response to that proposal was that it would not be appropriate because of prosecution decisions. Perhaps a review by the CPS inspectorate, working with the MPA—most of these cases end up being prosecuted in London—would be a good way of carrying out a combined analysis of what has been going on behind the scenes.
	There has been no assessment of the impact of the provision on individuals. We are told in the explanatory notes:
	"An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies."
	We are also told that the impact on the public sector is likely to be negligible. We know nothing about the impact on the individuals who have been held for 28 days: the three who were released and who were innocent, and the three who were charged. We know nothing about the impact on their mental health, their families or their employment position. The Government told us in their last letter to us that they had obtained no independent medical evidence on the psychological effects on the individuals concerned or, more generally, on what could be expected on an objective view.
	It is my Committee's view that the Government ought to obtain and make available to Parliament general advice on the psychological impact of being held without charge for such long periods and—when it is possible to do so—to provide an actual assessment of the impact on the individuals concerned, in terms of their mental health and of the broader impact on their lives. We could do that now in relation to the three who were released without being charged.
	Our main concern relates to the so-called judicial hearings around the extension process. We do not believe these hearings to be fully adversarial, there is limited disclosure, and the suspect and the lawyer are excluded for much of the hearing. The focus is on whether the investigation is conducted efficiently rather than on whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the arrest and continued detention in the first place. The case of Garcia Alva  v. Germany in the European Court of Human Rights sets out in detail what is expected and goes on to say:
	"The Court recalls that arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the 'lawfulness'...of their deprivation of liberty...the court has to examine 'not only compliance with the procedural requirements...but also the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention...The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure 'equality of arms' between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained person. Equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his client's detention...The court acknowledges the need for criminal investigations to be conducted efficiently, which may imply that part of the information...is to be kept secret in order to prevent suspects from tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice."
	The decision goes on to say that
	"this legitimate goal cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions on the rights of the defence."
	If we look at the proceedings that we now have under schedule 8, we see that it is clear, on any objective analysis, that what is now happening does not meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and, by extension, article 5. It is also interesting to note that Lord Carlile, in paragraph 105 of his report, seems to agree. He says that
	"judges should be permitted to intervene more and make greater demands as the length of detention is extended."
	More importantly, he goes on:
	"The government should consider empowering judges to scrutinise the reasons for detention, and the adequacy of the work done to bring the case to charge, from the 7th day after arrest."
	So we should be concerned not only with the procedure and the fact that the case has been conducted efficiently, which is what we have already. Lord Carlile is saying that we should also scrutinise the reasons for the detention in the first place, which is something that I have advocated in the House on previous occasions. The last time we debated these issues, a number of amendments were tabled on that point.
	It is not true to say that these proceedings have not been challenged in the courts. They were challenged in the case of Naseel Hussein, but he was caught in a Catch-22 situation when the High Court said that it would not review the decision of a High Court judge to extend his detention. That could also have the effect of excluding a potential habeas corpus application as an abuse of process. Habeas corpus requires the person doing the detaining clearly, directly and with sufficient particularity to provide the facts relied on as constituting a valid and sufficient ground for the detention of the person concerned. It is pretty clear that the schedule 8 application does not do that, because the focus is not on the reasons for detention—which is what habeas corpus requires—but on the course of the investigation. That reinforces the point about schedule 8 not meeting the requirements of article 5 or habeas corpus.
	I think that we need to see amendments to the procedure to make sure that we comply. We need to see a statement of the basis of the arrest given to the detainee and the gist of the material forming the grounds of suspicion given to the suspect. We need special advocates for the closed part of the hearing and, importantly, we need entitlement for the judge to look at whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the suspect was involved in terrorism in the first place, and reasonable grounds to justify the arrest and the continued detention.
	I am not going to oppose my right hon. Friend the Minister today and I hope that he will see my comments in the intended light—as an attempt to make a constructive contribution to the debate. I think that we need a lot more information about what has been going on in a qualitative way in the cases that we have already seen. I also think that he needs to look at the judicial safeguards as these provisions will be challenged ultimately in the European Court and I do not think that they will stand up.

Christopher Huhne: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who speaks on this issue with a good deal of sense after looking at it very carefully and thinking about it deeply. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not oppose this temporary annual disapplication. No one should underestimate the serious threats from terrorism and terrorists. We need to be resolute and forearmed in meeting them, but we must do so in a way that is seen to be proportionate.
	Our judgment is that 28 days detention in present circumstances can be viewed as proportionate, given the evidence from Operation Overt, the investigation in 2006 into the Heathrow bomb plot. I accept that that is longer than any comparable common law country: Australia has 12 days—the longest—the United States two days and Canada one day as the traditional period before a writ of habeas corpus can be served. We will not oppose the need for 28 days temporarily in the UK, partly because it is widely accepted that we face a greater threat in this country than in many others—due not least to our misguided participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, which is this Government's sad and lasting legacy on this issue. That does not mean, however, that 28 days should be seen as permanent or that we will not oppose this in future.
	As the Minister said in the debate last year, other developments such as post-charge questioning need to be taken into account in deciding whether 28 days is proportionate and appropriate. Indeed, four developments have taken place since the 28-day period was placed on the statute book in November 2005. First, we now have proposals for post-charge questioning in the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Secondly, the Chilcot report has made recommendations for the admissibility of intercept evidence in court, which our counterparts in the United States and Australia find to be essential. We look forward to Ministers' proposals, particularly in light of the comments of Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Public Bill Committee on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I quote what he said, as it is relevant to the temporary extension to 28 days:
	"Certainly, in other jurisdictions, they regard that material"—
	he was referring to intercept evidence—
	"as absolutely indispensable. The Americans told me that they could not remember an organised crime prosecution in the United States that last proceeded without intercept material. The Australians told me that people who did not use this material were not 'serious' about prosecuting organised crime". ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 48, Q124.]
	For organised crime, we could certainly read terrorism as well.
	The third development since we put this provision on to the statute book is that the Government have rightly put more resources into the Security Service and into counter-terrorist policing on a substantial scale. That increase inevitably reduces the need for an extension of the period of detention without charge, as greater complexity can be handled with greater resources.
	Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, there has been a substantial development in the flexibility of the threshold test, as Sir Ken Macdonald has pointed out. The Crown Prosecution Service does not need to ensure that there is a 50 per cent. chance of a successful conviction. Moreover, it is relevant in assessing Sir Ken's margin of manoeuvre to look at the Crown Prosecution Service's success rate with terrorist charges, which has been running at no less than 92 per cent. since the beginning of last year. Clearly, a 92 per cent. success rate after the event can and must inform the CPS about the chances of conviction before the event. It strongly suggests that the CPS has been somewhat conservative in allowing charges to be brought and can therefore have more flexibility in future. Again, that provides a strong argument for reconsidering even 28 days, let alone extending it further.
	The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the extension, while recognising that the arguments in its favour are weakening as our other precautions strengthen, and we merely ask Ministers to accept that principle, as did the Minister precisely on this matter last year. Making progress on the four areas that I mentioned can make the need for lengthy periods of detention without charge unnecessary, and whether an extension beyond 14 days is necessary will warrant reconsideration before next year.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for arriving a little late and missing the Minister's contribution, but I was here to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) speaking for the Opposition. I will be brief. Clearly, the House will pass this order and it is clearly essential that we do so in the interests of this country's security, but I want to make a couple of points that I hope the Minister will take into account in his reply to this short debate.
	The first is that we are discussing 28 days now because that was the compromise that Parliament agreed to the last time this matter came before the House. It was certainly the case before we discussed and passed 42 days a few days ago. That previous compromise was due to the hard work of my fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who tabled the amendment that was to gain the House's agreement. At that stage, as we all know, this was an extension of existing law. In accepting and passing this order as we doubtless will today—it seems to be agreed by all parties—it is essential that we look to two particular aspects highlighted by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I hope that the Minister will respond to both those aspects in his reply.
	The first is the impact on individuals who have been held by the police for up to 28 days. We in the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from the two gentlemen who were referred to as the "Forest Gate Two" and it is important to try to get a feeling of what it was like for such people to be detained under legislation for a period of time. Their evidence was strong, compassionate and compelling. It is important that we see the impact of this legislation and this House's decisions on individuals detained such as the "Forest Gate Two", but I would like to go further and consider the impact on communities. I make that point in all our debates on counter-terrorism legislation.
	I know that the Government are very proud of their record in providing £12 million from the Department for Communities and Local Government for proper engagement with communities—by and large, members of the Muslim communities and their organisations. It is important to view our legislation in the light of its impact on communities, as we need to carry communities with us if we are to continue to make the case—as we have to, and as the head of MI5 made when he addressed the Society of Editors last November—for dealing with a growing threat. As we make that case, we need to carry communities with us.
	The second point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and which I support strongly, is the need for the Government to provide more information. Obviously, the Select Committee process allows Ministers to come to the Committee and answer questions on issues of fact. I see in the House the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), another member of the Home Affairs Committee. During that Select Committee process—when we took evidence from, among others, Sir Ken Macdonald, Ministers and those affected by the legislation—we elicited information from the police as to the number of people being held for up to 28 days. That was the first time we were told that nobody was held on the dot for 28 days—indeed, people were being released beforehand—but there must be a better way of getting such information to the House. That is especially important in view of Government decisions taken during the debate on 42 days to provide additional information and to seek the views of the Chairmen of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of the Home Affairs Committee, whoever they may be in future, on any decision to extend the detention period.
	Once we have accepted the principle of consulting the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, there is nothing wrong in those circumstances with regularly providing information to the Chairpersons of those Committees, whoever they may be. Therefore, the need for us to table parliamentary questions and to have inquiries on the issue will, in a sense, not be as important, because we will regularly receive that information.
	I hope that the Minister, rather than wait for another year to go past, will regularly provide that information, some of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. It will better inform members of the relevant Committees of the number of people being detained and the reasons for their detention. I say that in a friendly way to the Minister, because I believe that he and the Home Secretary, in this difficult, dangerous and sensitive area, persisted in ensuring that so many people were consulted on the last piece of legislation to go through the House. In the spirit that the Home Secretary and the Minister have addressed the issue over the last few days, weeks and months, I hope that he will be more forthcoming with the information that he provides.

Bob Spink: I, too, apologise for not being present to hear the Minister's earlier remarks.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, for raising the issue of intercept evidence, which is an important option that I encourage the Government to consider carefully for the future. Like every speaker so far, I support the motion. I do so because I feel I have a duty to support it.
	I represent many thousands of constituents who work in London, which is on the front line of the world terrorist threat. Those people work to keep this country in the manner to which it has become accustomed and they put their lives on the line, so they must look to us in the House to give them the maximum possible protection from that terrorist threat. I would hate to send out a message to the world terrorist community that Great Britain has gone soft on terrorism or in its resolve to take every possible measure to counter terrorism.
	All hon. and right hon. Members support the motion. Many of them supported the extension from 28 days' detention to 42, but some, on principle, did not. Perhaps Front Benchers will use their winding-up speeches to explain why the extension by 14 days to 28 days without charge was right and a principled move, but the extension by 14 days to 42 days is somehow different and wrong in principle. I see the pragmatic differences, but I do not yet understand and no one has explained to me the difference in principle between those two extensions. I see advantages in the extensions, but I see no difference on principle. I would like an explanation of that.

Tony McNulty: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can do no better than to paraphrase the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who, on page 136 of his excellent little book "Celsius 7/7", talks about the broad Islamist threat in precisely those terms: as and when the threat increases, it is right and proper that a democracy takes all the power it requires, within its value system, to meet that threat. Equally, as and when that threat abates, so should those extraordinary powers. As I said, without going down the pathway of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, all that we seek to do in going beyond 28 days is predicated rightly and properly on the annual renewal of 28 days' detention. For terrorist cases, 14 days is the norm, 28 days is the exception, and beyond 28 days—I shall not dwell on that debate—is utterly the exception to the exception. Partly to answer the hon. Gentleman's point further, that is why we did not come back to the House with a proposal for a universal extension beyond 28 days, annually renewed or otherwise—we have sought to outline why there are grave and exceptional circumstances in which a period beyond 28 days is required.
	Broadly, I am grateful to the House for the nature of the debate. It should be a detailed debate. As I said, as and when greater collective awareness of the ins and outs of those detained beyond 14 days is possible, that will happen. I hope that that can happen by next year, not least because a goodly number of those suitably charged beyond 14 days are already in the courts, and some are about to go before them, so matters will be resolved one way or another. None of the 11 charged beyond 14 days have yet been convicted, and to return to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), they are allowed due process before we start crawling all over the statistics relating to how they got to that position in the first place. As and when all the information is available on those detained beyond 14 days before charge, it will be right and proper to dissect that information retrospectively.
	As I said in my opening statement, this is a serious and sensitive matter—we do not depart leisurely, or in anything but a very serious spirit to respond to a threat, from the 14-day norm accepted by the House for terrorism offences. I accept the broad sweep of colleagues' comments that, hopefully, post-charge questioning, intercept as evidence, resources, greater use of the threshold test, and greater use of acts preparatory and other elements put into legislation, will mean eventually that more people are charged as close to arrest as possible. But I am afraid that I do not share the faith of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that any of those elements will eradicate the need to go beyond 14 days, given the nature of the current threat.
	As I said during last week's debate, collectively, things such as the broader prevention agenda and the broader battle for hearts and minds—for want of a better phrase—should obviate the need for using such extraordinary legislation, by ensuring, first, that more and more individuals are dissuaded from the path of violent extremism in the first place, and secondly, that they are charged much closer to arrest than is currently possible. However, I cannot guarantee that. It is the Government's responsibility to make the judgment on the balance between guaranteeing public safety and otherwise.
	In answer to some direct questions, at least nine of the 11—if not all—were transferred to prison at day 14 and then brought back for interview, principally at Paddington Green, as and when required. In passing, let me say that the detention of individuals beyond 14 days is about not just interviewing them, but as much, if not more, about the investigatory process in which the police need to be engaged to get the evidence in order to put questions to such individuals in the first place. Invariably, as in the code, such individuals are transferred to prison post-14 days and then returned for interview. Code H says clearly that there should be eight hours' complete freedom from questioning on any given day. It is not the case that, other than during those eight hours, there is routine questioning on a regular basis. Often in terrorist cases, the investigation goes on and the individual will not say anything, and there is an iterative-type process. That goes back to the point about the times that individuals were apparently interviewed after 14 days—a point made with a degree of sophistry, I would say, by those to whom I referred earlier. Interestingly, there has been no case whatever of an accusation of oppressive questioning by any of the individuals kept post-14 days.
	On the other point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), a Crown Prosecution Service paper—I think that it was already published—has set out in detail the extension process, and is still available on the website. We have not done a special paper on the impact of questioning on the right to a fair trial and those other elements of which he spoke, but that might be worth considering.
	At the Report stage of the last Bill on this matter, I said clearly that there would be a review of the impact on communities of all our counter-terrorism legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made an entirely fair point in that regard. Although there are plenty of assertions about the impact post-14 days of the legislation that we are renewing today, there is no significant evidence. But as I said at a conference on stop-and-search powers last Saturday, although we are considering section 44 and the code of practice associated with it, such stop-and-search powers will have more impact on communities than the legislation under consideration. We have published information on numbers held and charged, and will try to prepare more.
	I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East slightly misreads the Bill considered last week, in the sense that we seek not to consult the relevant Select Committee Chairmen on the process, but inform them—unless I have misread the Bill—

Tony McNulty: That is my hon. Friend's view, and he is entirely welcome to express it, although while he is on his feet rather than from a sedentary position, if I may say so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is entirely wrong about schedule 8 and article 5 and the right to a fair trial—it is a tedious, circular debate. He says glibly that defendants are excluded from large parts of the hearings—wrong, as Sue Hemming said in her evidence. Just because one says something often enough, a bit like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz", it does not mean that it comes true. Sue Hemming was very clear that in some cases the process had ex parte elements, but they were very limited. Although the law did not require anything further than the gist of the case, in many instances, certainly beyond 14 days, she was very clear that substantially more than that was provided.
	For as long as this legislation has annual renewal, however, it is right and proper that there is due scrutiny. I freely accept that, and I commend the House on the way in which it has taken place. We think that the renewal is proportionate—it is certainly temporary and rightly so. The one thing that I will not forgive the hon. Member for Eastleigh for—it is either sloppy thinking, or if he believes it, he is profoundly wrong—is the notion that we only face a threat, regardless of individuals' position, because of actions taken by this country in relation to Iraq. That is profound twaddle and nonsense of the finest order.

Tony McNulty: The position taken by the Government to date is the position of the entire Government. When we proscribe organisations in an international rather than a domestic context, of course we consult Departments across Government, including the Foreign Office, whose position is in accord with ours.
	The PMOI was added to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations in 2001. We consider proscription to be a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. The consequence of proscription is that specific criminal offences apply in relation to a proscribed organisation. They include membership of the organisation and various forms of support, including organising or addressing a meeting and wearing or displaying an article indicating membership of the organisation. Further criminal offences exist in relation to fundraising and various uses of money and property for the purposes of terrorism.
	A group of 35 interested parties, consisting of Members of this House and of the other place, disagreed with the PMOI's proscription. A statutory procedure exists for any proscribed organisation, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, to apply to the Home Secretary for that organisation to be de-proscribed. The group followed that procedure correctly, and wrote to the Home Secretary requesting that the PMOI be de-proscribed. They argued that it was no longer concerned in terrorism, having renounced violence and disarmed, and that their desire to express their legitimate support for the PMOI and its objectives was being unlawfully curtailed by its continuing proscription.
	The then Home Secretary considered the application carefully, but continued to believe that the PMOI was concerned in terrorism, which is the statutory test for proscription. He formed that view in the light of the PMOI's lengthy history of violence, in the absence of any public renunciation of violence, and taking into account the fact that it had disarmed some two years after the decision to renounce violence, and only when it had no other choice in the face of the overwhelming force of the US military.

David Ruffley: Under part 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to proscribe any organisation that commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Proscription is a tough power. Any organisation that is on the list of proscribed organisations is outlawed in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or encourage support for, a proscribed organisation. It is a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or to carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription also means the financial assets of the organisation become terrorist property and, as such, can be subject to freezing and seizure.
	For those reasons, Parliament must take its role in scrutinising who is on the proscribed list very seriously. On the one hand, the failure to proscribe an organisation that is concerned with terrorism could allow it to have a foothold in the United Kingdom and also to recruit and raise funds in the UK, ultimately undermining national security in this country and beyond our borders. On the other hand, proscribing an organisation mistakenly or inappropriately could tie up a significant amount of resources—involving our intelligence services and others—which is what a proscription order requires. The resources available to our security services are finite and must be targeted properly.
	As the Minister has elegantly made clear, the order seeks to remove the PMOI—or the MEK, to use a name that is employed interchangeably, which is how I will be employing it in the debate—from the proscribed list. That will, in effect, legalise it as an organisation, allowing it to recruit members and to raise funds in the United Kingdom. The decision in the Secretary of State for the Home Department  v. Lord Alton and others left the Government with no choice but to bring forward this order de-proscribing the PMOI. The Minister set out their position and answered clearly that while he will abide by POAC's decision, he and ministerial colleagues do not necessarily agree with the merits of the decision. There remain a number of questions to which Opposition Members would like answers.
	I shall not rehearse the history of the PMOI; that has been done in detail elsewhere. However, before framing my questions I would like to summarise the history of its proscription in this country. On 28 February 2001, the then Home Secretary laid before Parliament the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which sought to add the PMOI to the proscribed organisations list. That order was approved by affirmative resolution and the organisation has remained on that list until the time of the order before us. A Home Office press notice issued at the same time described the PMOI as an organisation that
	"undertakes cross-border attacks into Iran, including terrorist attacks. It has assassinated senior Iranian officials and launched mortar attacks against government buildings in Tehran and elsewhere."
	On 5 June 2001, the PMOI applied to the Secretary of State to be removed from the list. He said in a letter dated 31 August 2001 that he remained satisfied that the organisation was then "concerned in terrorism", as defined by the 2000 Act, in that it
	"commits or participates in acts of terrorism".
	On those grounds, the application for de-proscription was then refused. In a debate in this place in March 2005, the then Home Secretary repeated the Government's view that the PMOI was
	"a nasty terrorist organisation that has to be contained".—[ Official Report, 1 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 799.]
	In October 2005, in response to a parliamentary question, it was said that the MEK had
	"a long history of involvement in terrorism in Iran and elsewhere and is, by its own admission, responsible for violent attacks that have resulted in many deaths."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 125.]
	Most recently, on 13 December 2007, the current Prime Minister gave evidence to the Liaison Committee, saying of PMOI that
	"to proscribe an organisation that has been involved in terrorist activity seems the right thing to do by the decisions of this Government".
	As recently as 5 February 2008 in the other place, the Minister of State, the noble Lord Malloch-Brown, said:
	"We just believe that there has not been a clear enough renunciation of those tactics...Until we are convinced that the organisation has really foresworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2008; Vol. 698, c. 949.]

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman, from his point of view, has probably supplied that balance through his remarks.
	The history of proscription gives a strong impression that the Executive of this country have serious and grievous concerns about whether this organisation has in fact renounced terrorist tactics. I make no criticism at all of Ministers in reciting the history; I merely record the fact that the advice they must be receiving from the security services and elsewhere clearly gives them pause when it comes to de-proscription. As I said earlier and as the Minister made clear, this order has been forced upon the Government—rightly or wrongly—because of a decision of POAC and of the Court of Appeal subsequently.
	I would like to take the argument forward a little by raising some specific questions that arise, given that background. The point of raising the background is to say that over the years, Ministers have, from the tenure of the now Secretary of State for Justice as Home Secretary onwards, tried to act in good faith on what is obviously a sensitive issue. However, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing would probably like the opportunity to respond to those questions.
	I am not entirely clear as to what the Minister can share with us on the Government's assessment of the PMOI's terrorist capability, but it raises a question for me, given that the order will, in all likelihood, be passed tonight. The Minister will wish to know that the Conservatives will not vote against it, and we wait to see exactly how this business is finalised. Mr. Deputy Speaker will not want me to pre-empt things, but the Conservatives will not oppose the order. Nevertheless, a question remains as to what understanding the Minister has about the possible reactivation of any involvement in terrorism and of the armed wing of this organisation subsequent to any de-proscribing that will be effected by the order's being passed.

David Ruffley: I shall give way in a moment. I would be most grateful to hear an answer on that point, as I know colleagues would, given the numbers seeking to intervene on me. Although the House might be de-proscribing in this order, it raises the question as to how other allied bodies, if indeed that is what they are, might be treated by Her Majesty's Government, because that seems to be a moderately authoritative report that they are seeking to ban this organisation's armed wing.

Andrew MacKinlay: Absolutely. That was my case, the case of the other 34 Members of the House of the Commons and the House of Lords, and the case of the Iranian opposition in exile. Things do change, as history tells us. A year before Jomo Kenyatta was invited to Buckingham palace to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he was described by the Crown's representative as the prince of darkness and death. People change and get respect. [ Interruption.] Yes, there was also Archbishop Makarios. One day, the people who are in exile will be in government in Tehran and the British Government of the day will be trying to rewrite history, just as the right hon. Lady who led the Conservative party rewrote history when we welcomed Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall. I have no illusions about this, but I welcome the fact that people change their minds. The British Government should have been more generous in acknowledging the change in attitude of the Iranian opposition in exile.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) raised some pertinent issues, and I hope that they are addressed. There was considerable anxiety following the report in  The Times that the Prime Minister had "instructed"—I think that that was the word—the Home Secretary to re-proscribe another grouping or what is described as its military wing. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, "The military wing of the military wing." I want a reassurance that we are not going to have a cat-and-mouse act in this respect. In any event—I say this with the greatest respect—the Prime Minister will certainly need to read the decision of the Court of Appeal if he is ever tempted to go down this road. The POAC and the Court of Appeal both said that there are certain tests that the Home Secretary is under a duty to apply. It is now demonstrably clear that political considerations—the appeasement to which I referred—cannot come into that. They are legal tests, not political tests. It would be a big mistake if the Government were tempted to do what has been suggested, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the report in  The Times is unfounded.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds also said that, under European Union rules, the fact that the United Kingdom had proscribed the organisation meant, ipso facto, that the whole EU had done so. The corollary of this evening's unanimous vote will surely be that the British Government will communicate to the EU that the House of Commons and the other place have unanimously decided that the proscription should be lifted, and will invite the EU to reassess its position. That would be the sensible and fair outcome of the debate.
	In conclusion, it is important to reiterate that the people in Camp Ashraf hold no weapons. They are under repeated attack and in serious danger. To use a simple phrase, they are taking these blows on the chin. They are turning the other cheek. We know that the source of these attacks is in Iran. It is bewildering to many Members that the Secretary of State for Defence has indicated, with great candour, that some of the ordinance used against British armed forces and coalition forces has its roots in Iran, implicitly with the full knowledge and consent of the Iranian regime. The PMOI and related organisations have been a significant source of information and intelligence to the United States and, ipso facto, to the United Kingdom Government and the coalition forces about the nature of the nuclear threat being developed by the Tehran regime.
	It is a matter of fact that the people in Ashraf have protected person status under the fourth Geneva convention, and I believe that there are moral obligations on coalition forces, of which we are part, to see that those people are protected. I want to state for the record that the United States, which has stewardship of that area of Iraq, has done an enormous amount to protect the people of Ashraf, to the extent that it has allowed them to have bank accounts and so on. That is not something we normally facilitate for terrorist organisations. Why has that been allowed? Because the United States is satisfied about the stand-down of the people in Ashraf—its demilitarisation—and the fact that they are open and transparent about their activities. Why can the United Kingdom Government not have the same generosity of spirit and common sense as our coalition partner, the United States? That is my request—the Government should pause and reflect.
	In my 16 years in the House of Commons, I have not known an issue that has united Members of Parliament from both Houses, and from across the political spectrum, as much as this one. We saw the action of the British Government as foolish and not in the long-term best interests of the UK. It was unfair and perverse. I hope that tonight, we have given the Government the opportunity to pause and reflect in order to remedy the wrong that they have perpetrated against those people. I am proud to have been part of the campaign to bring about the order, which will be passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

David Amess: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) described the Minister's speech as gracious. I assume that he was being sarcastic, because it was certainly nothing of the sort. It was a disgraceful and churlish speech. When the House considers this terrible matter, it is clear that the Government have behaved appallingly with the Foreign Office saying one thing and the Home Office saying another. The Minister's position tonight was disgraceful and it is a pity that the Home Secretary did not stay to listen to his speech.
	The PMOI has been seeking to bring an end to the terrorist and barbaric regime ruling Iran. More than 120,000 members and supporters of the movement, including boys and girls as young as 12, have been executed by the regime. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi and her supporters should be congratulated on the huge sacrifices they have made on behalf of others.
	The Minister cannot possibly dismiss what the Lord Chief Justice said in the Court of Appeal's judgment of 7 May 2008. I repeat what he said then:
	"It is a matter for comment and for regret that the decision-making process in this case has significantly fallen short of the standards which our public law sets and which those affected by public decisions have come to expect."
	That is an absolute disgrace. I firmly hope that today the Government have turned a page in their relations with the Iranian regime on the one hand and the Iranian people and their legitimate resistance to that regime on the other.
	I hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from the article in today's edition of  The Times, which was written by its deputy political editor, that told us that the Prime Minister
	"has ordered... the Home Secretary to ban the PMOI's military wing instead".
	We are told that, apparently
	"Iran has been exerting pressure on ministers to keep the ban on the PMOI, which is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. 'They have threatened to withdraw diplomats over this unless the ban stays,' one well-placed figure said."
	The Government must take immediate steps to ensure that the PMOI is removed from the European Union asset freeze list. The Government must accept that although the UK was a competent authority upon whose decision the EU listed the PMOI, now that that decision has been declared unlawful, the listing of the PMOI in the EU is also unlawful. At the same time, the Government must recognise the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as well as the PMOI, as being the legitimate opposition to the Iranian regime and engage in dialogue with them about the future.
	Of course I commend the Prime Minister on his announcement last week that Britain and a few other EU states would be imposing further sanctions on the Iranian regime's banking, oil and natural gas interests. However, the Government need to go much further. They should adopt a firm policy towards Iran, including blacklisting the revolutionary guard while applying comprehensive sanctions against the regime.
	The message to the mullahs in Tehran needs to be very clear: Britain will no longer have anything to do with a mediaeval regime that stones women to death, hangs children in public, exports fundamentalism and terrorism across the middle east, trains, funds and arms terrorists responsible for the killing of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as coalition troops, and pursues nuclear weapons.
	The order is a matter for rejoicing for all those people who want freedom in Iran, and it is a matter of shame for Her Majesty's Government that it has taken them so long to bring it forward.

David Drew: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), particularly when he has given me rather more time than I thought I would get for my speech. It was also a particular honour to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) who has raised this matter more than anyone else in the House. Indeed, he has raised it on countless occasions in order to bring justice and fairness to bear. This victory is his, along with a few others. I am not sure what the 35 of us will be called in future; the "Chicago Seven" was an interesting epithet, but we will just take it as one of those victories that was well deserved and long overdue.
	It was with some disappointment that I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister say what he said; he could have been more magnanimous. As the hon. Member for Southend, West said, he was somewhat churlish. In a sense, it is surprising that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, had to bail the Government out somewhat by saying, "There must have been some justification. We don't know what it is, but there must have been something because of the case that those people kept putting across."
	The reality is that the writing had been on the wall for some years and it would have been much better to accept the judgment of POAC rather than going through to the Court of Appeal. The Government would then not have received the admonition of the Lord Chief Justice, whose words were carefully chosen. I do not know what it has all been about. If there was such strong evidence for the proscription, I would have thought we would have heard it by now, but all the evidence has been to the contrary. It has been a question of when, not if, the de-proscription would take place.
	I pay tribute to the NCRI. Talk about a democratic campaign: we cannot go out of a tube station, attend a political party or go into Central Lobby without being lobbied by those people. That is what we call politics in this country. They have done it democratically. They have lobbied many of us on numerous occasions to get their point of view across. One would have thought that if there was a contrary point of view, one would have heard it and felt threatened in this country by the gestures of the PMOI. One would have thought that one would have heard what was happening in Iran.
	I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) says—one has to consider balance and take account of the fact that when there is a democratic Iran there will not necessarily be one particular party in the ascendancy. We do not know. All I know is that without the PMOI and the NCRI in this country, we would probably have not, in the wider field of things, heard about Natanz and the reprocessing. We owe them an obligation for the fact that they spilled the beans on the Iranian regime to make it absolutely clear that what was going on there was reprehensible, and the rest of the world has followed suit and taken action against the Iranian regime.
	We hear today that there is a possibility of even stronger sanctions, but without those who took an enormous personal risk in going inside Iran and saying what was going on in reality, we would not know all that and we do know it. We should acknowledge that and hold up our hands in admiration for those who take such risks.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say somewhat more magnanimously that the right decision has now been arrived at, notwithstanding the caveats that always have to be put in place. I hope also that he will at least disown the report in today's edition of  The Times. If that is spinning, it is most unhelpful. We may have to be careful that we are not seen to be too much in bed with one opposition group, but at the same time we should make it absolutely clear that we do not in any way support the regime in Tehran. If that regime thinks that it can lean on a Government here or a Government elsewhere in the EU, or indeed if it feels that it can get its way in the United States, where the proscription stays in place, that is wrong and it needs to be said that it is wrong.
	I am pleased that we have arrived at this decision and sorry that it has taken so long.

Bob Russell: Is the Minister giving a clue as to how the article appeared in  The Times today?

Philip Hollobone: Perhaps not; perhaps the Minister's area is more built up. May I tell him that in north Northamptonshire the idea that car use can be cut by 20 per cent. in new housing developments is simply fanciful? It may be that in an urban area people can be persuaded out of their cars on to public transport, if sufficient provision is made, but I am sceptical that a 20 per cent. reduction in car journeys can be made by people who move into those new developments. It is simply not possible for many people in north Northamptonshire to survive without the use of a motor vehicle. I suggest that that particular aspect of the core spatial strategy is fundamentally flawed.
	Policy 2 is entitled "Connecting North Northamptonshire with surrounding areas". It states
	"North Northamptonshire's connections with surrounding areas will be strengthened and enhanced to ensure that these are to the standard necessary to fulfil the role expected of them."
	Well, that is good. Among the priorities for further work and investment in North Northamptonshire in the period to 2021 are
	"Provision of additional capacity on Midland Main Line services calling at Kettering and Wellingborough."
	That sounds fantastic, but in fact the rail services to and from Kettering and the north will be halved this December, and the additional capacity mentioned amounts to the spare seats on the train service from St. Pancras to Corby.